"The modern philosopher is not trying to get rid of the troublesome men, he's trying to get rid of men because they are the troubles of the philosopher." - G.K. Chesterton
@@dieterkind ok... Nietzsches ideas weren't directly nazism but nazis used some of his concepts and historically the nazi leaders visited niezstches sister house were he lived his latest years...may be catholicism is almost dead....as a deist religion but as a culture in opositon to Islam tirany and protestant utilytarism will be alive for a lot bringing a prepositivist look for the society and economy... Or may be not.. But sad fact then...
J L M Catholicism is not almost dead as a deist religion. It continues to be on the rise in parts of Asia, as well as South America and Africa. It’s even gaining ground in the American southeast and southwest.
As a Christian who highly values both of these writers, Nietzsche is usually pulled in many different direction by many groups, unfortunately mostly by the left. But what most would be surprised to learn about him was that while he disliked the values of Christianity, he despised almost even more modern. what we could call "leftist" values. So much so that mostly all of his most famous book, Beyond Good and Evil is essentially a polemic against the modern, secular value negating culture of the west. He wasn't at all an atheist or a pessimist such as Schopenhauer was, and almost in no way was he affirmatively in favor of eugenics. He was however against democratic, egalitarian values that are common today.
Was he really an atheis?. And what atheism is exactly about? If atheists value pragmatism, logically the theist claim is the pragmatic one towards the concerns of the modern man; or rather the one and only possible explanation. In some sense I don’t even think self-proclaimed atheists are really atheists, but intellectually troubled people that have no meaning of value, and undervalue the meaning to be found in the maps that religious constructs offers.
This is amazing. To think after all of the fights, sex, bad movies, and other things I've watched, that I would arrive here, at this criminally unshared synopsis of the conflict that envelopes young men of our era. And that I was missing out by not watching EWTN!
I misunderstood the GOD is DEAD poem...it leaned towards the GOOD of the moral guides of THEOLOGY and moral law and commended it as a method of understanding meaning and morality...not that was how he lived but that he understood it's power and need...
Right. Nietzsche wasn’t necessarily celebrating the death of God. He had mixed feelings. He did seem to think that the idea of God should die, but he also feared that we might become like insects living meaningless lives without God.
Coming back to this eloquent and entertaining dramatization of the Chesterton's views on Nietzsche after half a year, I think there's more to be said on the limitations of the program by the American Chesterton Society which had devoted itself to _'common sense'_ . It is noteworthy that the program emphasizes a cultural disposition for the 'excentric' in German idealistic philosophy while contrasting it with a de facto 'Anglo-Saxon' utilitarianism or pragmatism - which is as uncritical of itself as was Nietzsche's de facto deliberate obsession with the 'mysteries' of Dionysos. After all, it was Chesterton himself who first criticized *Whig historiography* on the *secularization* in England - a reaction to the _idealized_ *industrialization* that brought about 'New Hegelian' thought and Romanticism in Germany around the same time, including _a revived interest in Catholicism_ e.g. in the German poet *Friedrich von Hardenberg* or 'Novalis'. It is correct that Protestantism arose within the German principalities and cities - like Luther and Calvin - but at the time when the German Nazi Party rallied against marching socialists in Munich, the Southern half of the former Holy Roman Empire was still _firmly Catholic_ and remains so until today while figures like e.g. Cardinal Newman in Britain were a rarity then - as he is now, centuries after the execution of the Christian humanist Thomas More. The problem of the *'radical enlightenment'* wasn't constructed just by the Bavarian 'Perfectibilists' or the French Jacobins, but was already at work in the cities of the Scottish lowlands - long before the mentioned Charles Darwin arguably projected industrial competition upon nature when overlooking _'symbiosis'_ in favour of 'natural selection'. Isn't the quest by Nietzsche for Dionysos - in contrast to the rational and self-reflecting 'Apollon' - a reaction to the *'alienation'* that came with the *'Scottish Enlightenment'* , built upon the preceding *voluntarism* of English 'grey friars' like Ockham and Francis Bacon - bringing not only class struggle, but also *'anomie'* and a _structural_ rise in suicides ? Wasn't the one writer who was most studied by Nietzsche throughout his life the quite _spiritual_ , but undogmatic *Ralph Waldo Emerson* ? One shouldn't take too much comfort in being satisfied to regard Nietzsche as mentally ill - the traditional trait of all followers of Dionysos - in mere Catholic _confessionalism_ or some American 'exeptional' 'common sense', but to recognize God's call upon our compassion for those who do not realize, yet that one can't have Dionysos, anymore without having *_Christ_* ... Chesterton's profound remarks on the 'modernity' of the Christian gospel far exceed 'common sense', proving there's more to *the divine image within human existence* than just _that_ ...
Unfortunately for your argument, the quote is from Chesterton: 'Nietzsche had some natural talent for sarcasm: he could sneer, though he could not laugh...'
Friedrich was in search for the ultimate purpose of humanity. The purpose of The man. He was simply very curious, with what psychologist would call a rage to master. This drive is not a sickness.
@@se7ve7ns The man was alone - It cld be OCD like u said, fragilizing his brain which has gotten worst after he witnessed the horse incident, leading to a break down he cldn't recover from. Im saying all that hypothetically.
I gotta say, I'm Catholic but this video horribly misrepresented Nietzsche. It's the typical Christian misunderstanding of him, which is annoying coming from the Church.
can't please all the people all the time What are you representing as being horribly misrepresented? Hitler was baptised a Catholic, and a lot people horribly misrepresented him and his representation of Nietzsche,... including atheists
Ian Booton I agree- he is misrepresented here, but no more than by anything else that represents him. This is because his writing is incoherent. if it was coherent his work could be reduced to a few axioms and syllogisms and well explained in half an hour; but as it is incoherent it cannot be reduced. I do not say this to detract from neitzsche- I like him, and think many of his famous propositions are true. But it would be foolish for me to imagine he was only serious when he said the things I agree with and not equaly serious when he contradicted or argued against them.
Frank A. I'm not saying Nietzsche wasn't crazy and I'm no advocate for his beliefs, but I find him interesting and would like to see him get his metaphorical day in court, so to speak.
I don't think Christians are to be blamed from all this. They only reacted to what Nietzsche published during that time, and that's their only material to make a counter argument. Someone told me that the published works Nietzsche have put out during that time were edited badly, but then again, I don't know if that is true.
Say what you will. You can defend Nietzsche by saying he was critiquing the society of his time and lamenting the social decay. The problem I have with Nietzsche is how he gets glorified for simply being a pessimist and the apparent attitude of rejecting morality and doing whatever you want. Firstly, Let looks at why morality exists. Say, there is a community where universal morality is rejected and does whatever it is they desire to do and where all vices are virtues. If you want something, you take it. If you dislike someone, you hurt them. You drink all the wine you want and eat more food. You spread rumors and sour peoples thought about their fellow man. And lastly, you kill your neighbor simply because you wan to see them die. Just think for a moment how long such a society would last before tearing itself apart. Seriously, just how long? A week? A month, maybe? When every man is a law unto themselves, everyone suffers. Perhaps this is an extreme and flawed outlook on Nietzsche's words. Fulfilling one's desire can interpreted many ways. Suppose we're talking reasonable desires like the desire to become an artist or a poet. Such desires are meritable. But if you desire to live a lifestyle that beyond your means or taking something that doesn't belong to you have deep rooted consequences that'll only lead to your own downfall. His critiques of religion as a tool to control the masses as well as restricting and stifling people from doing what they want. While, yes, religion can be and has been used to control and manipulate people, just look at any 20th century cult as an example. However, cults in particular use a variety of tactics that effectively create stockholm syndrome in the initiate. Religion on the other hand... well, lets just say if you give a hundred people an exact copy of the bible to read, you'll get a hundred different takeaways. If anything, faith and religion strengthen a person's resolve and commitment to their ideals. Now religion restricting people from fulfilling their desires... Well, how about we look this from a more secular perspective. Let's look at stealing as to why is it seen as immoral and therefore bad? Suppose stealing a neighbor's property wasn't illegal (as no fear of the law), is taking what you desire a good idea? After all, Your neighbor has something you want, what harm is there to simply walk in and take it? First, thieves rarely (if ever) appreciate what they have stolen. I didn't work for it nor have I earned it, so why should I take care of it is the attitude of thieves... and spoiled brats. Second, what if the neighbor doesn't want you to have it. Is it still a good thing to take what you desire if your neighbor desires to keep it? What length's is he willing to go? Is the cost and effort worth the trouble to get the macguffin if it means possible injury or even death in order to obtain it? And third, is my social standing worth the sacrifice to potentially be labeled a thief just to get the stupid thing. Am I willing to risk losing the trust of my neighbor just for mere trinket? Even from a secular point of view, stealing is a bad idea when examined. Well this is a lot longer then expected, kudos to any who actually get this far.
Tman The pseudo-philosopher But from a human perspective and as we humans societally operate; it is objective as we have these certain morals which do not simply exist as subjectives but instead as wildly held societal understandings.
Tman The pseudo-philosopher “Don’t shoot me! You’ll get in trouble” “I don’t care. This is worth it.” “But murder is wrong!” “Really?” “..well, no. That’s just my opinion, but don’t you agree!?” *Bang*
this is as wrong of an interpretation of Nietzche as I've ever seen. He wasn't celebrating the decline of faith. He was seeing it coming with all of its terrible implications. A world tossed on the wind. unrooted and chaotic.
This is absolutely correct. I would suggest that anyone interested in this topic should read "The Affirmation of Life: Nietzsche on Overcoming Nihilism" by Bernard Reginster. In this book, Reginster lays out a very solid case for the opinion that Nietzsche's entire philosophical project was an attempt to overcome the nihilism that resulted as a consequence of no longer being able to take the idea of God seriously. When Nietzsche writes "God is dead", he is not celebrating God's demise. In fact, he is lamenting the fact that the idea of God is dead, because this very fact means that moral value judgments no longer have any objective standing in the world, and therefore we lose our very compass in life, and are sent into despair and bewilderment. Nietzsche understood the exact consequences of the enlightenment, and understood the implications it would have for society. In many ways, his statements were prophetic and not only wise, but also incredibly accurate when you look at the amount of despair that ordinary people struggle with today, due to the loss of any objective compass in life. This was why he worked toward trying to find a solution to overcome nihilism, so that people could be spared the despair that naturally comes with nihilism. This video completely misinterprets, misrepresents and distorts Nietzsche's thought, which was far more complex and insightful than this video would lead you to believe. Also, as a minor but nonetheless very important comment, there is no evidence whatsoever that Nietzsche was ever "mad", in any sense of the word. This is a baseless and slanderous accusation made after his death, in an attempt to discredit him as a thinker. In fact, all recent medical evidence points to the theory that he probably suffered from a brain tumor, and there is nothing in his writings to suggest that he was in any way "mad." Read the above-mentioned book and come away impressed with his common sense, his insights, and his powers of prediction. Genius often looks mad to those less endowed with it.
@@sunepetersen9292 I would say that people today ‘believe’ more than they ever have. We are probably less nihilistic than ever, evidenced by our unshakable attachment to money, luxury and endless consumption. Furthermore, our belief in values such as equality, brotherhood, human life, etc, has never been as strong as today. When in history has a single human life (or death) ever had so much significance as it has now? So much so that we are prepared to put the whole world in lockdown to maintain the life of a small minority? When people faced death in religious times sayings such as ‘It’s God’s will’ ensured a greater sense of nihilism than we could ever imagine today. No, God certainly did not die, instead it is We ourselves who became God.
...allot of scholars now think that Nietzsche died of a brain tumor...even if he did go mad the way you said, I don't see how that discredit him. I just finished reading most of Nietzsche's works, and I find this video wildly out of context. Do I agree with all of Nietzsche, no but much of what he has to say is incredibly valuable, and quite frankly this video is an attempt to caricature him to look like a Bond villain so this organization can discredit like the three major quotes people always go back to with Nietzsche. None of these passages are even real passages from Nietzsche, their just patched together and out of context. If you really want to know what Nietzsche's project was about, give him a read. You don't have to agree with everything he said, but thats really part of philosophy. No one thinker gets it all right. Nietzsche had some great insights, and some ideas that were a bit extreme, but you'd be wrong to write him off as a lunatic before you gave him a charitable reading and saw that most sensible people would probably agree with allot more of his writing then they may think.
" I don't see how that discredit him" that he chose an infected prostitute to infect himself ... (whether he knew it or not) it is part of his 'credit' I have read some of his stuff, and yes and he was 'a "man" of wealth and taste' (copyright Rolling Stones) I didn't need to write him off as a lunatic .. he did that himself he, I believe, here is given the 'credit' due, nothing short nothing more
All I'm saying is check your facts www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/05/1051987657451.html a brain tumor is very different from the story you just told...and still regardless of what killed him if you're willing to take the good with the bad there is some downright brilliant content in Nietzsche's writing. You're not obligated to accept everything he said, or even the majority of it, but you'd be cheating yourself if you had the mentality that oh Nietzsche sounds like he was a lunatic I'm just going to ignore his works. There really is a reason why he is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of the modern era. It just takes a careful open minded reading to see that, and I'm not convinced that you gave him that.
oh dear... as I mentioned, I read some of his stuff and kinda 'liked it' and now, with an 'open mind' I read some of this stuff.... concerning him you may or may not agree with what is presented here, but it doesn't remove the fact (or the possibility thereof) that the man was a lunatic/insane, or perhaps better yet... 'evolved' .... nah.... developed lunacy/insanity. Brain tumors: Of the various types of neurosyphilis, gummatous neurosyphilis is very rare; its occurrence is commonly misdiagnosed as brain tumor Fred's not around to conclude that record/diagnosis, but the syphilis and the choice/judgement is record, besides, there is too much good in this world to be bothered 'taking the bad' I'm not that "smart", I love the acronym KISS (Keep I Simple Stupid) if it looks, talks n walks like a duck... then it must be a Fred :-)
You must feel very entitled to your inflated judgments of someone who was definitely a much more sensitive, intelligent, and daring character than yourself. What in him was a lunatic when everyone I've ever met was undoubtedly subject to innumerable incurable neuroses and layers of unnatural conditioning?
It is very transparent that there is no biases, nor prejudices in this episode. It is even clearer that the interpretation of Nietzsche's opus is thorough and veracious. Is it not ?
> "It is even clearer that the interpretation of Nietzsche's opus is thorough and veracious. Is it not ?" Are you saying that there is some objective, universal standard of fairness and open-minded inquiry into the truth with which we should be approaching the texts of Nietzsche?
monde monde just as funny as a pauper born in a stable who is as it turns out God, saves the world then is remembered and argued over for the rest of human existance, God has a sense of humor and i like bus drivers
I think ultimately Nieztche was afraid of ideas like reason, morality, logical self consistency ect, he wanted to abandon them for an animalistic existence driven by impulse and instinct, in his own language he wanted to be all dionysian with no Apollo, but by his own standards that's the opposite of the superman, it's a reversion to the ape.
Correction needed: aristocracy is by definition the rule of the best (in the sense of the fit), wich occurs in history (medieval chivalry) and is to be found as an element of human society even in modern democracies. What he may be referring is to plutocracy, the rule of few over many by the power of money, also know in history and manifest by the predominance of the burgeois mindset, as for instance, in the victorian period and also present these day as a constitutive element of part of the modern mindset.
Nicci is necessary Chesterton is necessary Plato is necessary Alexander Pope is necessary Trump is necessary evil is necessary good is necessary embrace the world for what it is and stop taking sides stop choosing man over Mother Nature everything is necessary everything is natural because we are all a part of nature the only things that are Universal ever is good actions and evil actions it's up to us to decide and be judged by those go look on the outside with the outside looker still being necessary for progress the world is mind krs-1 duality
I wouldn't say this in an accurate criticism of orthodox Nietzscheism(I'd look to Søren Kierkegaard and Tolkien for that) but it is a good criticism of what edgelords interpretation of Nietzscheism
There is a fallacy in the presenter's very first talk. At first he says Nietzsche, falsely, claims that only the strong survive. This is actually the opposite of Nietzsche's claim - his thought actually explicitly says that it is the weak who survive more than the strong. Darwinism isn't either Nietzsche's philosophy, it is Darwin's, whose philosophy belongs to himself. Nietzsche does not rebel against man, but rather tries to save man from dying simply due to his strength.
The "deliberately infecting himself with syphilis" thing is highly questionable. It came from some ravings he made while in the last stages of the disease, which is not really a reliable source. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't, but it's not beyond question.
🎁G.K CHESTERTON MERCHANDISE🎁 Unisex t-shirts with an exclusive illustration: ‘G.K Chesterton’s Lost Arts of War’ 💲SIGN UP WITH YOUR EMAIL FOR A £5 DISCOUNT💲 Pick a colour and order straight to your door 👇👇👇 www.phlexiblephilosophy.com/merchandise
Nietsche, as far as I can tell, was a sort of contemplative of the devil that burgeois people usually call a madmann by the lack of a better defined term. He was mad, but in the way Shakespeare coined it: not only mad in fact, but in craft also, wich is important to note. There is method in conjoining the fool and the drunkard permanently in one person.
What a stupid statement. God do not do anything 'for fun'. He do not expierience such things us fun, and any feelings for that matter. Everything that God does is by definition good and purposeful not some flimsy whim. And by that - serious. Beacuse He is Goodness and Reason itself. And the realness of evil and makes it even more serious for us. If anyone needs homework, it's Alan Watts.
@@alessandroludovicostresa860 There is nothing in the Genesis that suggest God was amused. "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good." ~ Genesis 1:31. It is clear assertion that what He created is good. There is nothing here about God's feelings about it, even more so about being amused. And even if it did say that - it would be definetly an analogy or a metaphor because God do not have feelings. He is immaterial and do not have any sensual experiences. Only a corporeal, sensual being can be amused about something.
THIS "dramatized" version does not do Chesterton justice, nor Nietzsche. It mocks Nietzsche and Chesterton was not a mocker. If this was JUST Chesterton's response against Nietzsche it would be a lot better. It would stay in the zone of a good debate, in a good debate one doesn't mock the opposition. The worst way to go into a debate is to mock the opposition.. that gets you nowhere. Chesterton even makes those points in his writings, for this Dramatized version to begin by mocking.. just doesn't sit well with me. Many of those who Chesterton debated with the most were those who became his dear friends and he highly respected them, and them him. That does not mean he had to agree with them.. it would be nice if more people today knew how to do this.. Chesterton valued their minds and their hearts and went about these debates with humility because he was just a jolly fat man. I'll leave a little fun exchange at the end between Chesterton and his prime debater Shaw. There is no hate in this little exchange, people found Chesterton made debates entertaining and enjoyable for people to watch/listen to and read. Chesterton always went into debates with the hope to spark peoples curiosities and inspire them to seek out truth for themselves, not mealy to mock and prove he was "right". Chesterton: I see there has been a famine in the land. Shaw: And I see the cause of it. Shaw: If I were as fat as you, I would hang myself. Chesterton: If I were to hang myself, I would use you for the rope.
i admire chesterton, and yet anyone who knows anything about history, knows that the conservative search for timeless truths paradoxically rejects an observable truth: that the world and humanity are changing. humanity has legitimate intellectual curiosity and a need to understand things. there were times when the teachings of abraham were new. as were the teachings of moses and jesus. they were not new to god, but they were to humanity. adversly, there are those who would wish to limit humanity's wish to learn: some in the name of money, some refuse to look beyond science, and others refuse to look beyond religion. that is the moment when the search for timeless ideals turns into fear of the unknown.
Wrong. Sorry but humanity has not changed technology has changed. These stories tell themselves over and over for thousands of years. The one thing Chesterton was most right about was the emergence of conservatism, and how important it would be to society. To balance the progressivism that would be accelerated by the exponential speed of modern technology.
Of course, German philosophers go against the common sense, they all built upon Luther. looking at that impersonation i demand, that a tin foil hat be sold with every Nietzsche's book :D
Tman The pseudo-philosopher I mean, Luther arguably set into place the foundation for many elements of German nationalism and some have even called him the father of it, because of his emphasis on the traits of the German peoples and their own faith being distinct from that of the Latin Church.
@@zackerycooper1206 Luther was by no means a friend to the Jews, but he wasn't, to my knowledge, an imperialist. I'm not sure if he would even recognize our modern theories of race. And his antisemitism predates him, that goes all the way back to the middle ages, at least.
Me pregunto si acaso Nietzsche alguna vez leyó a Cervantes. Si lo hizo, seguramente quemó el libro después, porque la simple historia de Don Quijote, refuta su filosofía materialista y su pesimista visión de la humanidad. Tal vez el filósofo germano sea más parecido al hidalgo de La Mancha, de lo que él creería, porque al igual que don Alonso Quijano, Nietzsche se enamoró de su propia Dulcinea, la prostituta que le contagió la sífilis, y terminó por volverle loco.
@@fernandoestebanzunigaandra8088 ... si le hubiera conocido hubiera hecho el mismo razonamiento de Alfonso Quijano en su lecho de muerte. Hubiera pedido perdón a tantos Sanchos Panzas que creyeron sus desvaríos y hubiera abjurado de su vida pasada.
I'm not sure that they were fair to nietche...according to Peterson he did not claim that God was dead triumphantly but knew that it would bring about terrible things in people....
This is truly a masterpiece of Christian preach.Very good misdirection of Nietzche's work.The fools shall continue to follow you.Mission accomplished preacher.Sadly.
You bet. He can't be criticized on the grounds of having a complete philosophical system because he didn't have one. But he was so influential that people did attempt to dissect him that way. Nietzsche's big thing was watching all of Europe fall away from the church in precipitous numbers, and yet each major philosopher's complete system, in attempting to be regarded as absolute and universal, feels it has to reconcile itself with god since that is the absolute universal with which the public are already familiar. Nietzsche felt we probably shouldn't have been doing that all along, and should certainly stop doing it now (1850-1870) that people are falling away from the church. So he was passionate. He was trying to wake philosophers up and called for a new kind of philosopher, one he felt certain was on its way. And he was right. No modern philosopher reconciles his philosophy with the church anymore. Coincidentally, Nietzsche died in 1900. And that is kind of the line in the sand. Before that, philosophy made assertions but generally aligned itself with religion. After that, nope.
Anthony P You understand nothing of philosophy at all after all that reading if you didn't understand or absorb that Nietzsche spoke at length about his Dionysian spirit. That's not all he said or valued, though, but for now you missed the first point entirely. Do you even know who he is?
"Nietzsche was a weak man". When I think of a "weak man" I do not imagine a person that defies his physical limitations, changing philosophy forever while being bedridden. When I think of a weak man, I think of a big-bellied bugman that needs to defend his side by unfairly presenting it in a biased play.
of course he was a 'weak man', and, sadly, a little more weak than most of us, he committed suicide, while abandoning his own health, to his incontinence to the perverse, and those around him.
I get that evolution is anathema to Christian salvation. I don't understand why evolution is denied to exist at all. Surely evolution is like sin and death, corruption brought into the world due to the fall?
"I don't understand why evolution is denied to exist at all" that is incorrect Ben there is not a denial of the 'theory of evolution' as you define as 'denied to exist at all' hope this article helps you better understand www.newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm
@@se7ve7ns Thanks for the video. Watching now. I am still stuck in the position of seeing denials of evolution and the "big bang" creation event in the distant past where space, time, and matter were created as a repetition of denials of the heliocentric solar system. I can accept God, sin, the fall, and salvation through faith in Christ, all this as true, but I can't see how to square literal reading of the biblical story with the observed universe, without falling into some sort of Gnostic view of the universe as intentionally misrepresented empirical evidence. Will keep praying and reading scripture. I trust that God will guide me to the right answer.
I get that the material explanation of the universe is seemingly endlessly incomplete. Every new observation throws up new unexplained things. Almost as if understanding things through materialism is not possible. I don't see this as debunking observations, just that our scientific theories cannot explain and probably will never explain the universe within the bounds of science.
what a piece of 06:32 a poor aristocrat you mean,...because he didn't even had a penny to cost his own books!!!! as tool says in THE POT...you must have been so high.
@@newtonia-uo4889 Strong and weak is a comparison between 2 creatures, how they interact. Fit - unfit is a comparison between a creatur and its environment. Fit could be: fast, strong, intelligent, small, big etc - same is valid for unfit. So the fittest is the one who is best equipped to life in a certain environment. The fast swimmer can always outrun the strongest bonecrusher in an watery environment. The weak intellectual can always outsmart the strongest idiot in an evironment where problem solving is a key factor. I hope you understand my meaning.
@@maxmuetze9083 when you say one is fit, you necessarily create a distinction between things that are unfit, the dichotomy still exist, it will always exist, it will never change, what is needed is understanding in the dichotomy and benevolence.
@@se7ve7ns maybe I can write a science fiction story about a mad scientist was disappoint to humanity, and, using experiment to create a superman a species that is more powerful than human
I don't know much about Nietzsche, but I do know that Julian of Norwich in the Fourteenth Century also did not believe in the concept of sin as it is generally understood. In her view, it was by sinning that we found our way to God. Sin enabled us to correct our aim toward God and was the result of ignorance and naiveté. She saw no wrath in God, only in mankind, (and I use that in the traditional sense of the word to include all human beings.)
Psychopaths' brains are wired differently. Generally they do not have a conscience, and for the most part they do not feel most emotions - especially fear. They are shy in the area that Freud once called the superego, where the conscience and higher emotions can be found and they are shy in the emotive hemisphere of the brain as well. The logical/intellectual part of their mind is fine. By not having a conscience to attend to, it frees up a lot of intellectual capacity and so they tend to be very smart. By not having much of a superego & emotive hemisphere they look at the world as two dimensional, they aren't able to love because they don't have that capacity and they can't really imagine love or God or similar kinds of things. Psychopaths see all relationships as vertically oriented: there's a top dog and a bottom dog and they must be the top dog. They also tend to recognize each other and if they are able to size each other up will just avoid each other. They look at people with their fears and emotions driving their behavior and they see weekness and gullible superstition. Such fools don't deserve to exists except to be tools for the psychopath to manipulate. They look as morality as ruse to control dupes, but not them. Likewise God is not really something they can imagine. Its a panacea for the courageless, superstitious dupes. Man's worship of God is little different to them as when man bowed before stone idols. Again, the psychopath looks upon all relationships as vertically oriented and he must be the top dog, so if their is a God the psychopath can't imagine him being superior to him. Psychopath's learn when they are young that they are different. They look at the rest of humanity and assume that they must be a new superior species - a new stage of evolution. If anything, they are the reverse - lizards and primitive species only have the fight or flight part of the mind - which is why psychopaths and the like are often called "lizard brains" they literally can't think of things on a higher order. It's not uncommon for psychopaths to think this way. Don't believe me? Than take the testimony of a Psychopath who actually said these things before he found Christ while serving time in jail. czcams.com/video/DakEcY7Z5GU/video.html I also caught the same point of view being spewed by one of General Zod's fellow Kryptonians fighting superman in the 2013 film "Man of Steel" (I think it was the female character Faora-Ul:). This is a common point of view for psychopaths. So Nietzsche represents the standard psychopath. I'm not surprised he contracted syphilis.
@@kaneinkansas how can he find Christ if he "has no conscience" and his "brain is wired differently"? you give a long explanation which basically translates to "psychopaths are not human" and then go on to say a psychopath was able to find Christ.
This is a blasphemous misrepresentation of Nietzche. They are making him sound like a conniving and evil madman, but that is the furthest from the truth. Nietzche wasnt happy when he proclaimed "God is dead", he was saying it regrettably. He wasnt a nihilist. It wasn't Nietzche that Germany embraced. Himmler always carried a copy of the bhagavad gita... Nietzche foresaw the events in the following century well before Chesterton
Nietzche is dead. He died demented. He was a great poet and he could visualise his ideas well. His philosophy is overrated but his influence on 20th century thinking is underrated. The post modernists are rhetorically much weaker and theoretically as timid. Atheists must have a God to deny, morality to subvert, traditions to tear apart. Without logical background to punch against the whole enterprise falls apart.
"After WWII, Nietzsche's idea's were more popular than ever". So if it's true that Nietzsche was the Nazi philoshopher, and the Nazi's lost the war, why did he become so popular after the war? Why would you teach your own people the philosophy of the enemy after you defeated him?
Nietzsche's "philosophy" was adapted by the Nazi (actually ..policy), as in the 'master race' or as Nietzsche called it 'the superman' Hitler was 11 when Nietzsche died Nietzsche was a German Hitler was an Austrian
People were just cringe nihilists after world war 2. I think I remember hearing somewhere that Nietzsche is associated with naziism because his sister or his sister in law was a nazi.
TeNoN aKoN Nietzsche would’ve never ever encourage the Nazis they were just presented with his ideas from his sister who supported them but Nietzsche himself never encouraged Anti-Semitism in fact that’s when the reasons He cut ties with his original publisher
Because his ideas are absolved from the crimes of Nazism, since they are implicitly believed in by those who also wish to make themselves the “super man.”
Sadly, Chesterton and Mill who I both admire did not see the atrocities that would occur in Europe during the reign of positivism, nihilism, & pure pragmatism; Nietzsche did, he knew more than anyone else, but his failure was that he thought values could be created.
I beg to differ... "Every high civilization decays by forgetting obvious things." It is a very common phrase of modern intellectualism to say that the morality of one age can be entirely different to the morality of another. And like a great many other phrases of modern intellectualism, it means literally nothing at all.
Chesterton doesn't really deal with Nietzsche's ideas directly. He challenges their utility to society overall, which is a great point. But beyond that all his other points are indirect arguments.
Nietzsche mispronounced. N was not an aristocrat, he was the son of a Lutheran pastor, who died when Friedrich was six. Mad and bad, but he did articulate what people wanted to hear very well.
Intellectuals like Chesterton are expected to argue on the basis of logic and on the basis of ideas. It is interesting to see and discover that a high ranking art-critic like Chesterton has to rely on distorted personal remarks on a philosopher to counter his/her ideas. In this case Nietzsche. This is what exactly happened in whole video, its essence has nothing of a critique but veiled personal slander of Nietzsche. And most of all what was astonishing is that, Nietzsche who's whole philosophy stood on building a foundational critique of German philosophy to be clubbed with that same damn tradition. Chesterton would serve well himself not true knowledge.
And Nietzsche was mad. You can see his works are motivated by madness through his assertion for the need of a “super man” without ever defining what, exactly, makes that man “super” to begin with. Nietzsche, much like Marx before him, was hypocritical and completely isolated from the reality of the world around him. Their philosophies never work because they are based on a resounding lack of the human condition. Chesterton’s ideals, however, are a reflection of the human condition, which is why he calls Nietzsche “mad.”
You do yourself a disservice in equating debunking Nietzsche's mad philosophy with debunking "the German philosophers" , as if they were all agreed. Kant and Hegel are way beyond the mad philosopher's nihilism and anti-metaphysics positions. Chesterton's glaring flaw is in seeing some essential connection between the mystic union of Christ's followers on earth and the Roman Catholic organization. The church is rebelling against humanity's desire to grasp Reason and apprehend God reasonably. Thus the Roman church, persecuted and killed Giordano Bruno and railed against Spinoza.
utterly inane, what humanity wanted was to reason out unreason so they can be God themselves but it will never succeed, gloriously or sadly, it has no chance of success.
My kid came home saying they watched this in his "Theory of Knowledge," IB class and he has to write a short essay about it in class tomorrow, but without any context. I'm sure the teacher is trying to get them to identify the flaws in the argument, including the prejudicial way Neitzsche is portrayed, but as a philosophy major it still pissed me off, especially on finding it was put on by the Global CATHOLIC Television Network. The teacher is Catholic.
Well..... 'they' wouldn't be much of a 'teacher' if he/she was teaching (esp in philosophy) to just look at the 'flaws in the argument' and the 'prejudicial way... ' this presentation 'pissed off' your philosophy. I mean.. wouldn't that mean that 'you' would've just looked at the 'flaws in the argument' and the 'prejudicial way... ' analysing Nietzsche? and let alone that 'you' were 'pissed off' that it broadcast by a Catholic network? (or any faith based view). are you suggesting we should limit the boundaries of philosophy to your philosophy?
@@se7ve7ns It isn't a philosophy class and it's in public high school. I got over it. On first viewing, it was irritating. I was also correct, it was to teach them to recognize the tactics used to prejudice the audience against Neitzsche, which had nothing to do with with Nietzsche's words. Hence the assignment being specifically to write a response to the film with no outside context, including words written by either author outside those presented in the video. The background behind Neitzsche is dark, while the background behind Chesterton is light. Close up's of Neitzsche face are threatening to the audience, while Chesterton is standing at a distance. When Chesterton speaks the music is light and cheery. When Neitzsche speaks, the music slowly turns sinister. Neitzsche's voice is reduced to an exaggerated vaudeville villain, while Chesterton's voice is calm and reasonable. So don't worry. Their Catholic teacher taught them all the ways this is religious propaganda bullshit.
so....@@kerriecobain4807... what you're stating is that the program "...had nothing to do with with Nietzsche's words." and only 'painted' him as evil, just by looking at pictures? so all those "reference points" about the 'superman' (racism) and 'moving beyond.... evil' etc is all made up? and his choice of horrible "suicide" was made up also? no one said he was stupid.. just very rich insane person.
This is a weak interpretation of Nietzsche, can you read him if you must critique him? When Nietzsche declared that morality was in decay and God was dead he wasn't claiming this was a good! He was stating realities and telling us to stop! By blatantly misstating his thesis you are sealing your own fate by condemning yourself to Nietzsche's own nightmares!
interesting view.... when you said "When Nietzsche declared that morality was in decay and God was dead he wasn't claiming this was a good! He was stating realities and telling us to stop!" curious.... why did he decide to kill himself so decadently and horribly...? ie... fall into that 'morality' that 'was in decay' that he was 'telling US to stop'?
@@se7ve7ns There's no evidence that he even had Syphillis(It's a likelihood though, I admit, and it's certainly true he was of weak sexual morality) he could have gone insane for a number of different reasons, Syphillis is just one diagnosis performed on a man they haven't even see in person. The idea that he killed himself, well, I've simply never heard that before and never seen any evidence for it. Read the section where Nietzsche declared that God was Dead again, outloud. It's clear that the death of God was tragedy, not something deserving of celebration. But Nietzsche wasn't explicitly christian per se, he was a cultural christian but not a personal one. He wanted a Christian society, but did not act this out, which should be considered self evident.
According to who? The philosophers who’ve adopted much of the same worldview as Nietzsche, of course! They would disagree with Chesterton because his writings just as much shine a light on their own, flawed methodology as they do on Nietzsche’s own, flawed philosophy. Chesterton is possibly one of the better philosophers to come about because he understood and remained in touch with the thing most philosophers rejected: his humanity.
@@MatthewChenault According to a narrowly defined interpretation of “humanity”, yes. Having “heart” doesn’t make a good philosopher when the purpose of a philosopher is to question such notions.
@@wellesradio, and that’s why philosophy always goes horrifically wrong. In their pursuit to explain why things are the way they are, they slowly lose their humanity and, subsequently, their sanity. After all, there is always a method to madness because that is what drives people mad to begin with; being methodical.
Nietzsche is straw man'd here, as is very easily done with Nietzsche. However i do love Chesterton, a most stalwart guide into the sometimes dark forest of philosophy.
Whoever made this video has no understanding whatsoever of Nietzsche's philosophy. I would prefer not to point out in which ways, thereby unintentionally giving you the impression you offer up anything worthy of discussion. Taking the proper critical, poetic approach to understand his work requires a particular finesse inspired by glimmers or onslaughts of insanity. The straight and narrow mind will not--and, I repeat, will not--(necessarily) understand Nietzsche. His language is beyond language, perhaps only matched by Hegel and Kierkegaard (my personal favorites). The one thing I'll point out to you which do not have the capacity to understand (narrator), is that Nietzsche was not evil (as in, bad-evil) character. Yes, he was evil--but in the purely good sense; an act characterized by such good only is only able to be carried out by Good-naturedness, as in, one who ultimately dwells in the Good, being a blessed Chosen One (Big difference between good and Good; find in much existentialism etc.). Nietzsche was a servant of God and Christianity in the highest possible way as a philosopher during his time. He challenges our common notions scathingly, making use of the SWORD which Christ finally passes on to his disciples upon being crucified. The sword does not only allow us the distinguish Good from Evil in others, but to take on the sacred duty of assumed and blessed Good in wielding the sword bravely to separate truth from deception--and that is precisely what Nietzsche's philosophy does. His descent into madness is his final surrender to his intuitive Knowing that he had been serving Christ (God) all along. And no one else.
There are 3 sides of political thought. Nietzsche was an individualist. Chesterton was an absolutist. Marx was a communist. There are 3 types of morality, which correlate with the 3 political ideologies: Individualism: master morality Absolutism: slave morality Communism: herd morality
And the only one that doesn’t result in madness is Chesterton’s works, since they acknowledge the human condition and the vital importance of morality.
@@christophersnedeker2065 Master morality is meant to benefit the user, while slave morality is meant to be a burden on the user. Not complicated why Nietzsche hated Christian values.
@@ricardomilos3464 But according to so called slave morality the user gains the desirable attribute of being rightous. As socrates, who nieztche considered a proto christian said "I go to die and thou to live and God only knows who has the better lot" Explain to my why master morality is more desirable.
Is there such a thing? Either you're a Christian or an atheist, not both! Anyway, you are the personification of one of those characters described by G.K. Chesterton in his Orthodoxy! 😂 Good luck finding the true you!
![Rick Roderick on Nietzsche and the Death of God [full length]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OisdFRGlK-Y/mqdefault.jpg)
![Rick Roderick on Nietzsche and the Death of God [full length]](/img/tr.png)
"The modern philosopher is not trying to get rid of the troublesome men, he's trying to get rid of men because they are the troubles of the philosopher." - G.K. Chesterton
True
It is a great injustice that Nietzsche is remembered by the universities, but Chesterton is completely forgotten.
That is not a bad thing at all.
G.K. Chesterton was a true heavy hitter!!!
Precisely the ideas of niestze produced the basis for later nazism
@@dieterkind ok... Nietzsches ideas weren't directly nazism but nazis used some of his concepts and historically the nazi leaders visited niezstches sister house were he lived his latest years...may be catholicism is almost dead....as a deist religion but as a culture in opositon to Islam tirany and protestant utilytarism will be alive for a lot bringing a prepositivist look for the society and economy... Or may be not.. But sad fact then...
@@dieterkind amen..
@@jlm190 What did you just say?
J L M Catholicism is not almost dead as a deist religion. It continues to be on the rise in parts of Asia, as well as South America and Africa. It’s even gaining ground in the American southeast and southwest.
As a Christian who highly values both of these writers, Nietzsche is usually pulled in many different direction by many groups, unfortunately mostly by the left. But what most would be surprised to learn about him was that while he disliked the values of Christianity, he despised almost even more modern. what we could call "leftist" values. So much so that mostly all of his most famous book, Beyond Good and Evil is essentially a polemic against the modern, secular value negating culture of the west. He wasn't at all an atheist or a pessimist such as Schopenhauer was, and almost in no way was he affirmatively in favor of eugenics. He was however against democratic, egalitarian values that are common today.
Well said.
Was he really an atheis?. And what atheism is exactly about? If atheists value pragmatism, logically the theist claim is the pragmatic one towards the concerns of the modern man; or rather the one and only possible explanation. In some sense I don’t even think self-proclaimed atheists are really atheists, but intellectually troubled people that have no meaning of value, and undervalue the meaning to be found in the maps that religious constructs offers.
@@marques_asecas5894 unless an atheist is a psychopath, you cannot really be an atheist.
Thank you!
Can we just appreciate this acting? 👌
wirklich gut 👍👍👍
@@ATigo-nu9xt 😳
The acting is really good actually
Thanks for the complete upload of the episode!
Chesterton is underrated, indeed.
This is amazing. To think after all of the fights, sex, bad movies, and other things I've watched, that I would arrive here, at this criminally unshared synopsis of the conflict that envelopes young men of our era. And that I was missing out by not watching EWTN!
Now your have a path in funny of you, a stairway to heaven.
I misunderstood the GOD is DEAD poem...it leaned towards the GOOD of
the moral guides of THEOLOGY and moral law and commended it as a
method of understanding meaning and morality...not that was how he lived
but that he understood it's power and need...
Right. Nietzsche wasn’t necessarily celebrating the death of God. He had mixed feelings. He did seem to think that the idea of God should die, but he also feared that we might become like insects living meaningless lives without God.
Did Nietzsche's voice actually like a stereotypical supervillan?
Haha probably not? But even so, if the words he wrote were spoken with cheer, I think it would make it even more disturbing.
Syphillis is a hell of a disease
He had a pretty heavy german accent I think.
Do you believe that he would have it any other way?
Yes!
Coming back to this eloquent and entertaining dramatization of the Chesterton's views on Nietzsche after half a year, I think there's more to be said on the limitations of the program by the American Chesterton Society which had devoted itself to _'common sense'_ .
It is noteworthy that the program emphasizes a cultural disposition for the 'excentric' in German idealistic philosophy while contrasting it with a de facto 'Anglo-Saxon' utilitarianism or pragmatism - which is as uncritical of itself as was Nietzsche's de facto deliberate obsession with the 'mysteries' of Dionysos.
After all, it was Chesterton himself who first criticized *Whig historiography* on the *secularization* in England - a reaction to the _idealized_ *industrialization* that brought about 'New Hegelian' thought and Romanticism in Germany around the same time, including _a revived interest in Catholicism_ e.g. in the German poet *Friedrich von Hardenberg* or 'Novalis'.
It is correct that Protestantism arose within the German principalities and cities - like Luther and Calvin - but at the time when the German Nazi Party rallied against marching socialists in Munich, the Southern half of the former Holy Roman Empire was still _firmly Catholic_ and remains so until today while figures like e.g. Cardinal Newman in Britain were a rarity then - as he is now, centuries after the execution of the Christian humanist Thomas More.
The problem of the *'radical enlightenment'* wasn't constructed just by the Bavarian 'Perfectibilists' or the French Jacobins, but was already at work in the cities of the Scottish lowlands - long before the mentioned Charles Darwin arguably projected industrial competition upon nature when overlooking _'symbiosis'_ in favour of 'natural selection'.
Isn't the quest by Nietzsche for Dionysos - in contrast to the rational and self-reflecting 'Apollon' - a reaction to the *'alienation'* that came with the *'Scottish Enlightenment'* , built upon the preceding *voluntarism* of English 'grey friars' like Ockham and Francis Bacon - bringing not only class struggle, but also *'anomie'* and a _structural_ rise in suicides ?
Wasn't the one writer who was most studied by Nietzsche throughout his life the quite _spiritual_ , but undogmatic *Ralph Waldo Emerson* ?
One shouldn't take too much comfort in being satisfied to regard Nietzsche as mentally ill - the traditional trait of all followers of Dionysos - in mere Catholic _confessionalism_ or some American 'exeptional' 'common sense', but to recognize God's call upon our compassion for those who do not realize, yet that one can't have Dionysos, anymore without having *_Christ_* ...
Chesterton's profound remarks on the 'modernity' of the Christian gospel far exceed 'common sense', proving there's more to *the divine image within human existence* than just _that_ ...
'Exceptional'.
Of Nietzsche, "he could sneer but he could not laugh." Dale Alquist is himself a quite a quotesmith!
Unfortunately for your argument, the quote is from Chesterton: 'Nietzsche had some natural talent for sarcasm: he could sneer, though he could not laugh...'
The TRUE philosopher giggles innerly . . . and does NOT reveal the TAO (-> ENVY !)
@@patrickbuerke1390 Good to know. Thanks.
Friedrich was in search for the ultimate purpose of humanity. The purpose of The man. He was simply very curious, with what psychologist would call a rage to master. This drive is not a sickness.
Well, in the end,
did he satisfy his curiosity or his rage very well?
or was it just plain ol' extreme OCD?
Accident happens. No one know what is it that causes his descent into madness. It could be biological. He was alone, out of touch with reality.
@@june4294 so.... which part, of Friedrich's life/actions, do you think may have been the 'accident' that contributed to his 'madness'
@@se7ve7ns The man was alone - It cld be OCD like u said, fragilizing his brain which has gotten worst after he witnessed the horse incident, leading to a break down he cldn't recover from. Im saying all that hypothetically.
May God bless G.K Chesterton. What an amazing man!
I gotta say, I'm Catholic but this video horribly misrepresented Nietzsche. It's the typical Christian misunderstanding of him, which is annoying coming from the Church.
can't please all the people all the time
What are you representing as being horribly misrepresented?
Hitler was baptised a Catholic, and a lot people horribly misrepresented him and his representation of Nietzsche,... including atheists
Ian Booton I agree- he is misrepresented here, but no more than by anything else that represents him.
This is because his writing is incoherent. if it was coherent his work could be reduced to a few axioms and syllogisms and well explained in half an hour; but as it is incoherent it cannot be reduced.
I do not say this to detract from neitzsche- I like him, and think many of his famous propositions are true. But it would be foolish for me to imagine he was only serious when he said the things I agree with and not equaly serious when he contradicted or argued against them.
Frank A. I'm not saying Nietzsche wasn't crazy and I'm no advocate for his beliefs, but I find him interesting and would like to see him get his metaphorical day in court, so to speak.
I don't think Christians are to be blamed from all this. They only reacted to what Nietzsche published during that time, and that's their only material to make a counter argument. Someone told me that the published works Nietzsche have put out during that time were edited badly, but then again, I don't know if that is true.
don't you think he had a bagful of "his metaphorics" in his day
and kind of overstretched and overdone these day?
'in court, so to speak.'? :-)
This is the weirdest Monty Python scene I've ever seen
Aqueduct?
Say what you will. You can defend Nietzsche by saying he was critiquing the society of his time and lamenting the social decay. The problem I have with Nietzsche is how he gets glorified for simply being a pessimist and the apparent attitude of rejecting morality and doing whatever you want.
Firstly, Let looks at why morality exists.
Say, there is a community where universal morality is rejected and does whatever it is they desire to do and where all vices are virtues. If you want something, you take it. If you dislike someone, you hurt them. You drink all the wine you want and eat more food. You spread rumors and sour peoples thought about their fellow man. And lastly, you kill your neighbor simply because you wan to see them die.
Just think for a moment how long such a society would last before tearing itself apart. Seriously, just how long? A week? A month, maybe? When every man is a law unto themselves, everyone suffers.
Perhaps this is an extreme and flawed outlook on Nietzsche's words. Fulfilling one's desire can interpreted many ways. Suppose we're talking reasonable desires like the desire to become an artist or a poet. Such desires are meritable. But if you desire to live a lifestyle that beyond your means or taking something that doesn't belong to you have deep rooted consequences that'll only lead to your own downfall.
His critiques of religion as a tool to control the masses as well as restricting and stifling people from doing what they want. While, yes, religion can be and has been used to control and manipulate people, just look at any 20th century cult as an example. However, cults in particular use a variety of tactics that effectively create stockholm syndrome in the initiate. Religion on the other hand... well, lets just say if you give a hundred people an exact copy of the bible to read, you'll get a hundred different takeaways. If anything, faith and religion strengthen a person's resolve and commitment to their ideals.
Now religion restricting people from fulfilling their desires... Well, how about we look this from a more secular perspective. Let's look at stealing as to why is it seen as immoral and therefore bad? Suppose stealing a neighbor's property wasn't illegal (as no fear of the law), is taking what you desire a good idea? After all, Your neighbor has something you want, what harm is there to simply walk in and take it?
First, thieves rarely (if ever) appreciate what they have stolen. I didn't work for it nor have I earned it, so why should I take care of it is the attitude of thieves... and spoiled brats.
Second, what if the neighbor doesn't want you to have it. Is it still a good thing to take what you desire if your neighbor desires to keep it? What length's is he willing to go? Is the cost and effort worth the trouble to get the macguffin if it means possible injury or even death in order to obtain it?
And third, is my social standing worth the sacrifice to potentially be labeled a thief just to get the stupid thing. Am I willing to risk losing the trust of my neighbor just for mere trinket?
Even from a secular point of view, stealing is a bad idea when examined.
Well this is a lot longer then expected, kudos to any who actually get this far.
Tman The pseudo-philosopher But from a human perspective and as we humans societally operate; it is objective as we have these certain morals which do not simply exist as subjectives but instead as wildly held societal understandings.
Tman The pseudo-philosopher
“Don’t shoot me! You’ll get in trouble”
“I don’t care. This is worth it.”
“But murder is wrong!”
“Really?”
“..well, no. That’s just my opinion, but don’t you agree!?”
*Bang*
this is as wrong of an interpretation of Nietzche as I've ever seen. He wasn't celebrating the decline of faith. He was seeing it coming with all of its terrible implications. A world tossed on the wind. unrooted and chaotic.
then he proposes the concept of a "superman"...?
This is absolutely correct. I would suggest that anyone interested in this topic should read "The Affirmation of Life: Nietzsche on Overcoming Nihilism" by Bernard Reginster. In this book, Reginster lays out a very solid case for the opinion that Nietzsche's entire philosophical project was an attempt to overcome the nihilism that resulted as a consequence of no longer being able to take the idea of God seriously. When Nietzsche writes "God is dead", he is not celebrating God's demise. In fact, he is lamenting the fact that the idea of God is dead, because this very fact means that moral value judgments no longer have any objective standing in the world, and therefore we lose our very compass in life, and are sent into despair and bewilderment. Nietzsche understood the exact consequences of the enlightenment, and understood the implications it would have for society. In many ways, his statements were prophetic and not only wise, but also incredibly accurate when you look at the amount of despair that ordinary people struggle with today, due to the loss of any objective compass in life. This was why he worked toward trying to find a solution to overcome nihilism, so that people could be spared the despair that naturally comes with nihilism. This video completely misinterprets, misrepresents and distorts Nietzsche's thought, which was far more complex and insightful than this video would lead you to believe. Also, as a minor but nonetheless very important comment, there is no evidence whatsoever that Nietzsche was ever "mad", in any sense of the word. This is a baseless and slanderous accusation made after his death, in an attempt to discredit him as a thinker. In fact, all recent medical evidence points to the theory that he probably suffered from a brain tumor, and there is nothing in his writings to suggest that he was in any way "mad." Read the above-mentioned book and come away impressed with his common sense, his insights, and his powers of prediction. Genius often looks mad to those less endowed with it.
@@sunepetersen9292 I would say that people today ‘believe’ more than they ever have. We are probably less nihilistic than ever, evidenced by our unshakable attachment to money, luxury and endless consumption. Furthermore, our belief in values such as equality, brotherhood, human life, etc, has never been as strong as today. When in history has a single human life (or death) ever had so much significance as it has now? So much so that we are prepared to put the whole world in lockdown to maintain the life of a small minority? When people faced death in religious times sayings such as ‘It’s God’s will’ ensured a greater sense of nihilism than we could ever imagine today. No, God certainly did not die, instead it is We ourselves who became God.
did you watch the whole video? The narrator mentions this.
The Interpretation is absolutely correct. Misinterpretation is not the same as logical, sane, intelligent analysis.
Nietzsche was just an edgy cringelord looking for attention, smh
What a programme! A sheer treasure!!!
...allot of scholars now think that Nietzsche died of a brain tumor...even if he did go mad the way you said, I don't see how that discredit him. I just finished reading most of Nietzsche's works, and I find this video wildly out of context. Do I agree with all of Nietzsche, no but much of what he has to say is incredibly valuable, and quite frankly this video is an attempt to caricature him to look like a Bond villain so this organization can discredit like the three major quotes people always go back to with Nietzsche. None of these passages are even real passages from Nietzsche, their just patched together and out of context. If you really want to know what Nietzsche's project was about, give him a read. You don't have to agree with everything he said, but thats really part of philosophy. No one thinker gets it all right. Nietzsche had some great insights, and some ideas that were a bit extreme, but you'd be wrong to write him off as a lunatic before you gave him a charitable reading and saw that most sensible people would probably agree with allot more of his writing then they may think.
" I don't see how that discredit him"
that he chose an infected prostitute to infect himself ... (whether he knew it or not) it is part of his 'credit'
I have read some of his stuff, and yes and he was 'a "man" of wealth and taste' (copyright Rolling Stones)
I didn't need to write him off as a lunatic .. he did that himself
he, I believe, here is given the 'credit' due, nothing short nothing more
All I'm saying is check your facts www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/05/1051987657451.html
a brain tumor is very different from the story you just told...and still regardless of what killed him if you're willing to take the good with the bad there is some downright brilliant content in Nietzsche's writing. You're not obligated to accept everything he said, or even the majority of it, but you'd be cheating yourself if you had the mentality that oh Nietzsche sounds like he was a lunatic I'm just going to ignore his works. There really is a reason why he is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of the modern era. It just takes a careful open minded reading to see that, and I'm not convinced that you gave him that.
oh dear... as I mentioned, I read some of his stuff and kinda 'liked it' and now, with an 'open mind' I read some of this stuff.... concerning him
you may or may not agree with what is presented here, but it doesn't remove the fact (or the possibility thereof) that the man was a lunatic/insane, or perhaps better yet... 'evolved' .... nah.... developed lunacy/insanity.
Brain tumors: Of the various types of neurosyphilis, gummatous neurosyphilis is very rare; its occurrence is commonly misdiagnosed as brain tumor
Fred's not around to conclude that record/diagnosis, but the syphilis and the choice/judgement is record,
besides, there is too much good in this world to be bothered 'taking the bad'
I'm not that "smart", I love the acronym KISS (Keep I Simple Stupid)
if it looks, talks n walks like a duck... then it must be a Fred :-)
and the smh as a source..... really???
You must feel very entitled to your inflated judgments of someone who was definitely a much more sensitive, intelligent, and daring character than yourself. What in him was a lunatic when everyone I've ever met was undoubtedly subject to innumerable incurable neuroses and layers of unnatural conditioning?
Holy Cow! That was…. Sublime.
How scarily its being played out now
It is very transparent that there is no biases, nor prejudices in this episode. It is even clearer that the interpretation of Nietzsche's opus is thorough and veracious. Is it not ?
Perhaps voracious, but certainly not veracious. A parody at best. Read Kaufmann on Nietzsche.
> "It is even clearer that the interpretation of Nietzsche's opus is thorough and veracious. Is it not ?"
Are you saying that there is some objective, universal standard of fairness and open-minded inquiry into the truth with which we should be approaching the texts of Nietzsche?
Kaufmann on anything!
Jesus is more popular today in the World because He is God, light is strongher than darkness
Haha the Bus Driver ... restore the faith to humanity!
monde monde just as funny as a pauper born in a stable who is as it turns out God, saves the world then is remembered and argued over for the rest of human existance, God has a sense of humor and i like bus drivers
I think ultimately Nieztche was afraid of ideas like reason, morality, logical self consistency ect, he wanted to abandon them for an animalistic existence driven by impulse and instinct, in his own language he wanted to be all dionysian with no Apollo, but by his own standards that's the opposite of the superman, it's a reversion to the ape.
Correction needed: aristocracy is by definition the rule of the best (in the sense of the fit), wich occurs in history (medieval chivalry) and is to be found as an element of human society even in modern democracies. What he may be referring is to plutocracy, the rule of few over many by the power of money, also know in history and manifest by the predominance of the burgeois mindset, as for instance, in the victorian period and also present these day as a constitutive element of part of the modern mindset.
Isn't that meritocracy?
he confuses it with oligarchy
Chesterton frames himself speaking about the world, to the world.
Nietzche frames the world shouting about himself, into a mirror.
Didn't Nietzsche AND his philosophy, BOTH became INSANE
how philosophy can became ill?
Take away the supernatural, and all you have is the unnatural. Makes since in this day and age, Chesterton was right.
Gk chesterton... That grasshopper.
I don't see Neitche in the world now. And he claims to be a superman . He can't even beat death. He lost that battle. May God have mercy on his soul.
Nietzsche only spoke of self improvement. He never said anything about immortality.
I clearly see you have not improved on yourself. Which makes you the last man he was talking about.
Imagine turning on ewtn and seeing a "God is dead" monolouge without context.
Keh???
you're funny man.....
The 5 million wasn't just Polish Catholics.
What an unflattering look at Nietzche.
Beautiful
Nicci is necessary Chesterton is necessary Plato is necessary Alexander Pope is necessary Trump is necessary evil is necessary good is necessary embrace the world for what it is and stop taking sides stop choosing man over Mother Nature everything is necessary everything is natural because we are all a part of nature the only things that are Universal ever is good actions and evil actions it's up to us to decide and be judged by those go look on the outside with the outside looker still being necessary for progress the world is mind krs-1 duality
Wonderful wonderful Chesterton must have loved William Booth
Might aswell give Nietzsche a cape and fangs lol
if you think so... 😂
Those would clash with the evil walrus mustache.
I wouldn't say this in an accurate criticism of orthodox Nietzscheism(I'd look to Søren Kierkegaard and Tolkien for that) but it is a good criticism of what edgelords interpretation of Nietzscheism
There is a fallacy in the presenter's very first talk.
At first he says Nietzsche, falsely, claims that only the strong survive.
This is actually the opposite of Nietzsche's claim - his thought actually explicitly says that it is the weak who survive more than the strong.
Darwinism isn't either Nietzsche's philosophy, it is Darwin's, whose philosophy belongs to himself.
Nietzsche does not rebel against man, but rather tries to save man from dying simply due to his strength.
The "deliberately infecting himself with syphilis" thing is highly questionable. It came from some ravings he made while in the last stages of the disease, which is not really a reliable source. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't, but it's not beyond question.
I'm not sure he had siphilis at all
He still went mad though
Your correction does not actually help Nietzsche's case. LOL!
🎁G.K CHESTERTON MERCHANDISE🎁
Unisex t-shirts with an exclusive illustration: ‘G.K Chesterton’s Lost Arts of War’
💲SIGN UP WITH YOUR EMAIL FOR A £5 DISCOUNT💲
Pick a colour and order straight to your door 👇👇👇
www.phlexiblephilosophy.com/merchandise
Nietsche, as far as I can tell, was a sort of contemplative of the devil that burgeois people usually call a madmann by the lack of a better defined term. He was mad, but in the way Shakespeare coined it: not only mad in fact, but in craft also, wich is important to note. There is method in conjoining the fool and the drunkard permanently in one person.
Lol youre an olavo de carvalho follower who thinks that you can understand philosophy.
Twelfth night: that the fool may take in care the drunkard. An always recurring theme in Shakespeare, as in King Lear.
“Man suffer because he takes seriously what God created for fun”. Alan Watts. Homework for Chesterton
What a stupid statement. God do not do anything 'for fun'. He do not expierience such things us fun, and any feelings for that matter. Everything that God does is by definition good and purposeful not some flimsy whim. And by that - serious. Beacuse He is Goodness and Reason itself. And the realness of evil and makes it even more serious for us. If anyone needs homework, it's Alan Watts.
@@TheGeneralGrievous19 Creation Amused God. Genesis.
@@alessandroludovicostresa860 There is nothing in the Genesis that suggest God was amused. "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good." ~ Genesis 1:31. It is clear assertion that what He created is good. There is nothing here about God's feelings about it, even more so about being amused.
And even if it did say that - it would be definetly an analogy or a metaphor because God do not have feelings. He is immaterial and do not have any sensual experiences. Only a corporeal, sensual being can be amused about something.
@@TheGeneralGrievous19 'by definition 'good'?
Try defining good?
THIS
"dramatized" version does not do Chesterton justice, nor Nietzsche. It mocks Nietzsche and Chesterton was not a mocker. If this was JUST Chesterton's response against Nietzsche it would be a lot better. It would stay in the zone of a good debate, in a good debate one doesn't mock the opposition. The worst way to go into a debate is to mock the opposition.. that gets you nowhere. Chesterton even makes those points in his writings, for this Dramatized version to begin by mocking.. just doesn't sit well with me.
Many of those who Chesterton debated with the most were those who became his dear friends and he highly respected them, and them him. That does not mean he had to agree with them.. it would be nice if more people today knew how to do this.. Chesterton valued their minds and their hearts and went about these debates with humility because he was just a jolly fat man. I'll leave a little fun exchange at the end between Chesterton and his prime debater Shaw. There is no hate in this little exchange, people found Chesterton made debates entertaining and enjoyable for people to watch/listen to and read. Chesterton always went into debates with the hope to spark peoples curiosities and inspire them to seek out truth for themselves, not mealy to mock and prove he was "right".
Chesterton: I see there has been a famine in the land.
Shaw: And I see the cause of it.
Shaw: If I were as fat as you, I would hang myself.
Chesterton: If I were to hang myself, I would use you for the rope.
Great stuff, but it hurts to hear the host pronounce Nietzsche's name. I can't believe no one advised him on this.
i admire chesterton, and yet anyone who knows anything about history, knows that the conservative search for timeless truths paradoxically rejects an observable truth: that the world and humanity are changing. humanity has legitimate intellectual curiosity and a need to understand things. there were times when the teachings of abraham were new. as were the teachings of moses and jesus. they were not new to god, but they were to humanity. adversly, there are those who would wish to limit humanity's wish to learn: some in the name of money, some refuse to look beyond science, and others refuse to look beyond religion. that is the moment when the search for timeless ideals turns into fear of the unknown.
Wrong. Sorry but humanity has not changed technology has changed. These stories tell themselves over and over for thousands of years. The one thing Chesterton was most right about was the emergence of conservatism, and how important it would be to society. To balance the progressivism that would be accelerated by the exponential speed of modern technology.
Of course, German philosophers go against the common sense, they all built upon Luther.
looking at that impersonation i demand, that a tin foil hat be sold with every Nietzsche's book :D
And Hitler
@Tman The pseudo-philosopher Both rejected reason, that does not always lead in the same direction, but does always lead to madness.
Tman The pseudo-philosopher I mean, Luther arguably set into place the foundation for many elements of German nationalism and some have even called him the father of it, because of his emphasis on the traits of the German peoples and their own faith being distinct from that of the Latin Church.
@@zackerycooper1206 Luther was by no means a friend to the Jews, but he wasn't, to my knowledge, an imperialist. I'm not sure if he would even recognize our modern theories of race. And his antisemitism predates him, that goes all the way back to the middle ages, at least.
Oh only illiterates here.
Nietzsche based on luther seriously...
Strawmen strawmen everywhere
... wanting to be 'Super' strawmen .. :-)
Hace falta que estas emisiones se haga también en español; Nietzsche tiene muchos apologistas que solo muestran una versión de este personaje
Me pregunto si acaso Nietzsche alguna vez leyó a Cervantes. Si lo hizo, seguramente quemó el libro después, porque la simple historia de Don Quijote, refuta su filosofía materialista y su pesimista visión de la humanidad. Tal vez el filósofo germano sea más parecido al hidalgo de La Mancha, de lo que él creería, porque al igual que don Alonso Quijano, Nietzsche se enamoró de su propia Dulcinea, la prostituta que le contagió la sífilis, y terminó por volverle loco.
@@fernandoestebanzunigaandra8088 ... si le hubiera conocido hubiera hecho el mismo razonamiento de Alfonso Quijano en su lecho de muerte. Hubiera pedido perdón a tantos Sanchos Panzas que creyeron sus desvaríos y hubiera abjurado de su vida pasada.
I'm not sure that they were fair to nietche...according to Peterson he did not claim that God was dead triumphantly but knew that it would bring about terrible things in people....
This is truly a masterpiece of Christian preach.Very good misdirection of Nietzche's work.The fools shall continue to follow you.Mission accomplished preacher.Sadly.
Nietzche is perhaps the most emotional and irrational philosopher I ever read, and I've read a lot of philosophy.
+Anthony P Naturally, someone absorbed in irrationality might very well deem the rational to be irrational.
You bet. He can't be criticized on the grounds of having a complete philosophical system because he didn't have one.
But he was so influential that people did attempt to dissect him that way.
Nietzsche's big thing was watching all of Europe fall away from the church in precipitous numbers, and yet each major philosopher's complete system, in attempting to be regarded as absolute and universal, feels it has to reconcile itself with god since that is the absolute universal with which the public are already familiar.
Nietzsche felt we probably shouldn't have been doing that all along, and should certainly stop doing it now (1850-1870) that people are falling away from the church.
So he was passionate. He was trying to wake philosophers up and called for a new kind of philosopher, one he felt certain was on its way.
And he was right.
No modern philosopher reconciles his philosophy with the church anymore.
Coincidentally, Nietzsche died in 1900. And that is kind of the line in the sand.
Before that, philosophy made assertions but generally aligned itself with religion.
After that, nope.
Anthony P You understand nothing of philosophy at all after all that reading if you didn't understand or absorb that Nietzsche spoke at length about his Dionysian spirit. That's not all he said or valued, though, but for now you missed the first point entirely. Do you even know who he is?
Anthony P Hahahahahaha yet you spell Nietzsche incorrectly ?? fucking moron
rapittapitslapit lol
"Nietzsche was a weak man".
When I think of a "weak man" I do not imagine a person that defies his physical limitations, changing philosophy forever while being bedridden.
When I think of a weak man, I think of a big-bellied bugman that needs to defend his side by unfairly presenting it in a biased play.
of course he was a 'weak man', and, sadly, a little more weak than most of us, he committed suicide, while abandoning his own health, to his incontinence to the perverse, and those around him.
I get that evolution is anathema to Christian salvation. I don't understand why evolution is denied to exist at all. Surely evolution is like sin and death, corruption brought into the world due to the fall?
"I don't understand why evolution is denied to exist at all"
that is incorrect Ben
there is not a denial of the 'theory of evolution' as you define as 'denied to exist at all'
hope this article helps you better understand
www.newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm
@@se7ve7ns Thanks I am looking around to understand this stuff. Your feedback is appreciated.
@@knightrider585 here's a bit more
appreciating that the
Big Bang Theory was founded by
Fr. Georges Lemaître
czcams.com/video/_ViDEZUbm3s/video.html
@@se7ve7ns Thanks for the video. Watching now. I am still stuck in the position of seeing denials of evolution and the "big bang" creation event in the distant past where space, time, and matter were created as a repetition of denials of the heliocentric solar system. I can accept God, sin, the fall, and salvation through faith in Christ, all this as true, but I can't see how to square literal reading of the biblical story with the observed universe, without falling into some sort of Gnostic view of the universe as intentionally misrepresented empirical evidence. Will keep praying and reading scripture. I trust that God will guide me to the right answer.
I get that the material explanation of the universe is seemingly endlessly incomplete. Every new observation throws up new unexplained things. Almost as if understanding things through materialism is not possible. I don't see this as debunking observations, just that our scientific theories cannot explain and probably will never explain the universe within the bounds of science.
what a piece of 06:32 a poor aristocrat you mean,...because he didn't even had a penny to cost his own books!!!! as tool says in THE POT...you must have been so high.
Replace "strongest" with "fittest" and the strawman is gone.
no, the dichotomy still exist, the strong vs the weak, the fit vs the unfit rather than good vs evil.
@@newtonia-uo4889 Strong and weak is a comparison between 2 creatures, how they interact. Fit - unfit is a comparison between a creatur and its environment. Fit could be: fast, strong, intelligent, small, big etc - same is valid for unfit. So the fittest is the one who is best equipped to life in a certain environment. The fast swimmer can always outrun the strongest bonecrusher in an watery environment. The weak intellectual can always outsmart the strongest idiot in an evironment where problem solving is a key factor.
I hope you understand my meaning.
@@maxmuetze9083 when you say one is fit, you necessarily create a distinction between things that are unfit, the dichotomy still exist, it will always exist, it will never change, what is needed is understanding in the dichotomy and benevolence.
Why nietzsche look like evil scientist ?
probably because Nietzsche looked like that🤣
depending on which photo you find
@@se7ve7ns maybe I can write a science fiction story about a mad scientist was disappoint to humanity, and, using experiment to create a superman a species that is more powerful than human
One sided
I don't know much about Nietzsche, but I do know that Julian of Norwich in the Fourteenth Century also did not believe in the concept of sin as it is generally understood. In her view, it was by sinning that we found our way to God. Sin enabled us to correct our aim toward God and was the result of ignorance and naiveté. She saw no wrath in God, only in mankind, (and I use that in the traditional sense of the word to include all human beings.)
If that were true, then Jesus would have sinned.
The more you know about psychopath's and their nature, the more predictable one finds Nietzsche.
Psychopaths' brains are wired differently. Generally they do not have a conscience, and for the most part they do not feel most emotions - especially fear. They are shy in the area that Freud once called the superego, where the conscience and higher emotions can be found and they are shy in the emotive hemisphere of the brain as well. The logical/intellectual part of their mind is fine. By not having a conscience to attend to, it frees up a lot of intellectual capacity and so they tend to be very smart. By not having much of a superego & emotive hemisphere they look at the world as two dimensional, they aren't able to love because they don't have that capacity and they can't really imagine love or God or similar kinds of things.
Psychopaths see all relationships as vertically oriented: there's a top dog and a bottom dog and they must be the top dog. They also tend to recognize each other and if they are able to size each other up will just avoid each other.
They look at people with their fears and emotions driving their behavior and they see weekness and gullible superstition. Such fools don't deserve to exists except to be tools for the psychopath to manipulate. They look as morality as ruse to control dupes, but not them.
Likewise God is not really something they can imagine. Its a panacea for the courageless, superstitious dupes. Man's worship of God is little different to them as when man bowed before stone idols. Again, the psychopath looks upon all relationships as vertically oriented and he must be the top dog, so if their is a God the psychopath can't imagine him being superior to him.
Psychopath's learn when they are young that they are different. They look at the rest of humanity and assume that they must be a new superior species - a new stage of evolution.
If anything, they are the reverse - lizards and primitive species only have the fight or flight part of the mind - which is why psychopaths and the like are often called "lizard brains" they literally can't think of things on a higher order.
It's not uncommon for psychopaths to think this way.
Don't believe me? Than take the testimony of a Psychopath who actually said these things before he found Christ while serving time in jail. czcams.com/video/DakEcY7Z5GU/video.html
I also caught the same point of view being spewed by one of General Zod's fellow Kryptonians fighting superman in the 2013 film "Man of Steel" (I think it was the female character Faora-Ul:). This is a common point of view for psychopaths.
So Nietzsche represents the standard psychopath. I'm not surprised he contracted syphilis.
@@kaneinkansas how can he find Christ if he "has no conscience" and his "brain is wired differently"?
you give a long explanation which basically translates to "psychopaths are not human" and then go on to say a psychopath was able to find Christ.
This is a blasphemous misrepresentation of Nietzche. They are making him sound like a conniving and evil madman, but that is the furthest from the truth. Nietzche wasnt happy when he proclaimed "God is dead", he was saying it regrettably. He wasnt a nihilist. It wasn't Nietzche that Germany embraced. Himmler always carried a copy of the bhagavad gita... Nietzche foresaw the events in the following century well before Chesterton
Blasphemous??
how is it possible to 'blaspheme' a 'man'?
Nietzche is dead. He died demented. He was a great poet and he could visualise his ideas well.
His philosophy is overrated but his influence on 20th century thinking is underrated.
The post modernists are rhetorically much weaker and theoretically as timid.
Atheists must have a God to deny, morality to subvert, traditions to tear apart.
Without logical background to punch against the whole enterprise falls apart.
"After WWII, Nietzsche's idea's were more popular than ever". So if it's true that Nietzsche was the Nazi philoshopher, and the Nazi's lost the war, why did he become so popular after the war? Why would you teach your own people the philosophy of the enemy after you defeated him?
Nietzsche's "philosophy" was adapted by the Nazi (actually ..policy),
as in the 'master race' or as Nietzsche called it 'the superman'
Hitler was 11 when Nietzsche died
Nietzsche was a German
Hitler was an Austrian
People were just cringe nihilists after world war 2. I think I remember hearing somewhere that Nietzsche is associated with naziism because his sister or his sister in law was a nazi.
TeNoN aKoN Nietzsche would’ve never ever encourage the Nazis they were just presented with his ideas from his sister who supported them but Nietzsche himself never encouraged
Anti-Semitism in fact that’s when the reasons He cut ties with his original publisher
Because his ideas are absolved from the crimes of Nazism, since they are implicitly believed in by those who also wish to make themselves the “super man.”
Sadly, Chesterton and Mill who I both admire did not see the atrocities that would occur in Europe during the reign of positivism, nihilism, & pure pragmatism; Nietzsche did, he knew more than anyone else, but his failure was that he thought values could be created.
I beg to differ...
"Every high civilization decays by forgetting obvious things."
It is a very common phrase of modern intellectualism
to say that the morality of one age can be entirely different to the morality of another.
And like a great many other phrases of modern intellectualism, it means literally nothing at all.
The only thing Germany has not gotten wrong is engineering. What to do with it their philosophers have failed miserably.
lol thus spoke someone who must only had read anglo philosophy and thinked it was smart.
Chesterton doesn't really deal with Nietzsche's ideas directly. He challenges their utility to society overall, which is a great point. But beyond that all his other points are indirect arguments.
Nietzsche mispronounced. N was not an aristocrat, he was the son of a Lutheran pastor, who died when Friedrich was six. Mad and bad, but he did articulate what people wanted to hear very well.
Intellectuals like Chesterton are expected to argue on the basis of logic and on the basis of ideas. It is interesting to see and discover that a high ranking art-critic like Chesterton has to rely on distorted personal remarks on a philosopher to counter his/her ideas. In this case Nietzsche. This is what exactly happened in whole video, its essence has nothing of a critique but veiled personal slander of Nietzsche. And most of all what was astonishing is that, Nietzsche who's whole philosophy stood on building a foundational critique of German philosophy to be clubbed with that same damn tradition. Chesterton would serve well himself not true knowledge.
And Nietzsche was mad. You can see his works are motivated by madness through his assertion for the need of a “super man” without ever defining what, exactly, makes that man “super” to begin with.
Nietzsche, much like Marx before him, was hypocritical and completely isolated from the reality of the world around him. Their philosophies never work because they are based on a resounding lack of the human condition. Chesterton’s ideals, however, are a reflection of the human condition, which is why he calls Nietzsche “mad.”
You do yourself a disservice in equating debunking Nietzsche's
mad philosophy with debunking "the German philosophers" , as if they were all agreed.
Kant and Hegel are way beyond the mad philosopher's nihilism and anti-metaphysics positions.
Chesterton's glaring flaw is in seeing some essential connection between the mystic union of Christ's followers on earth and the Roman Catholic organization.
The church is rebelling against humanity's desire to grasp Reason and apprehend God reasonably.
Thus the Roman church, persecuted and killed Giordano Bruno and railed against Spinoza.
utterly inane, what humanity wanted was to reason out unreason so they can be God themselves but it will never succeed, gloriously or sadly, it has no chance of success.
Had to give him hey sinister movie villain voice didn’t you? This is insipid
My kid came home saying they watched this in his "Theory of Knowledge," IB class and he has to write a short essay about it in class tomorrow, but without any context. I'm sure the teacher is trying to get them to identify the flaws in the argument, including the prejudicial way Neitzsche is portrayed, but as a philosophy major it still pissed me off, especially on finding it was put on by the Global CATHOLIC Television Network. The teacher is Catholic.
Well..... 'they' wouldn't be much of a 'teacher' if he/she was teaching (esp in philosophy) to just look at the 'flaws in the argument' and the 'prejudicial way... ' this presentation 'pissed off' your philosophy.
I mean.. wouldn't that mean that 'you' would've just looked at the
'flaws in the argument' and the 'prejudicial way... ' analysing Nietzsche?
and let alone that 'you' were 'pissed off' that it broadcast by a Catholic network? (or any faith based view).
are you suggesting we should limit the boundaries of philosophy to your philosophy?
@@se7ve7ns It isn't a philosophy class and it's in public high school. I got over it. On first viewing, it was irritating. I was also correct, it was to teach them to recognize the tactics used to prejudice the audience against Neitzsche, which had nothing to do with with Nietzsche's words. Hence the assignment being specifically to write a response to the film with no outside context, including words written by either author outside those presented in the video.
The background behind Neitzsche is dark, while the background behind Chesterton is light. Close up's of Neitzsche face are threatening to the audience, while Chesterton is standing at a distance. When Chesterton speaks the music is light and cheery. When Neitzsche speaks, the music slowly turns sinister. Neitzsche's voice is reduced to an exaggerated vaudeville villain, while Chesterton's voice is calm and reasonable.
So don't worry. Their Catholic teacher taught them all the ways this is religious propaganda bullshit.
so....@@kerriecobain4807... what you're stating is that the program
"...had nothing to do with with Nietzsche's words."
and only 'painted' him as evil, just by looking at pictures?
so all those "reference points" about the 'superman' (racism) and 'moving beyond.... evil' etc is all made up?
and his choice of horrible "suicide" was made up also?
no one said he was stupid.. just very rich insane person.
@@se7ve7ns How is the Ubermensch (superman) racist? Nietzsche was very critical of movements like antisemitism.
@@scottz9834, ....OK....
how about ..... 'super-racist'?
This is a weak interpretation of Nietzsche, can you read him if you must critique him? When Nietzsche declared that morality was in decay and God was dead he wasn't claiming this was a good! He was stating realities and telling us to stop! By blatantly misstating his thesis you are sealing your own fate by condemning yourself to Nietzsche's own nightmares!
interesting view....
when you said "When Nietzsche declared that morality was in decay and God was dead he wasn't claiming this was a good! He was stating realities and telling us to stop!"
curious....
why did he decide to kill himself so decadently and horribly...?
ie... fall into that 'morality' that 'was in decay' that he was 'telling US to stop'?
@@se7ve7ns There's no evidence that he even had Syphillis(It's a likelihood though, I admit, and it's certainly true he was of weak sexual morality) he could have gone insane for a number of different reasons, Syphillis is just one diagnosis performed on a man they haven't even see in person. The idea that he killed himself, well, I've simply never heard that before and never seen any evidence for it. Read the section where Nietzsche declared that God was Dead again, outloud. It's clear that the death of God was tragedy, not something deserving of celebration.
But Nietzsche wasn't explicitly christian per se, he was a cultural christian but not a personal one. He wanted a Christian society, but did not act this out, which should be considered self evident.
No offense, NO
This is taken out of context.
I don't think anyone considers Chesterton to be on the same level as Nietzsche except fringe Evangelicals.
G.K. Chesterton was a true heavy hitter.
According to who? The philosophers who’ve adopted much of the same worldview as Nietzsche, of course! They would disagree with Chesterton because his writings just as much shine a light on their own, flawed methodology as they do on Nietzsche’s own, flawed philosophy.
Chesterton is possibly one of the better philosophers to come about because he understood and remained in touch with the thing most philosophers rejected: his humanity.
@@MatthewChenault According to a narrowly defined interpretation of “humanity”, yes. Having “heart” doesn’t make a good philosopher when the purpose of a philosopher is to question such notions.
@@wellesradio, and that’s why philosophy always goes horrifically wrong. In their pursuit to explain why things are the way they are, they slowly lose their humanity and, subsequently, their sanity.
After all, there is always a method to madness because that is what drives people mad to begin with; being methodical.
@@MatthewChenault Can’t say I’d much miss losing my “humanity” if I disagree with you about what that actually means.
I dont like Nietzsche but this characterization is extremely uncharitable
Nietzsche is straw man'd here, as is very easily done with Nietzsche. However i do love Chesterton, a most stalwart guide into the sometimes dark forest of philosophy.
Lol the misrepresentation of nietzche is beyond compare
Give one example ?
Whoever made this video has no understanding whatsoever of Nietzsche's philosophy. I would prefer not to point out in which ways, thereby unintentionally giving you the impression you offer up anything worthy of discussion. Taking the proper critical, poetic approach to understand his work requires a particular finesse inspired by glimmers or onslaughts of insanity. The straight and narrow mind will not--and, I repeat, will not--(necessarily) understand Nietzsche. His language is beyond language, perhaps only matched by Hegel and Kierkegaard (my personal favorites).
The one thing I'll point out to you which do not have the capacity to understand (narrator), is that Nietzsche was not evil (as in, bad-evil) character. Yes, he was evil--but in the purely good sense; an act characterized by such good only is only able to be carried out by Good-naturedness, as in, one who ultimately dwells in the Good, being a blessed Chosen One (Big difference between good and Good; find in much existentialism etc.). Nietzsche was a servant of God and Christianity in the highest possible way as a philosopher during his time. He challenges our common notions scathingly, making use of the SWORD which Christ finally passes on to his disciples upon being crucified. The sword does not only allow us the distinguish Good from Evil in others, but to take on the sacred duty of assumed and blessed Good in wielding the sword bravely to separate truth from deception--and that is precisely what Nietzsche's philosophy does. His descent into madness is his final surrender to his intuitive Knowing that he had been serving Christ (God) all along. And no one else.
So, you have to be nutz to understand Nietzsche? I hope you don't understand him. Really, I hope you don't.
@ora et labora Make the attempt to understand the arrogant. It's worth it
god who is god. world runs by some rule of physics and gravitational forces r applied in universe no any god present there
There are 3 sides of political thought.
Nietzsche was an individualist.
Chesterton was an absolutist.
Marx was a communist.
There are 3 types of morality, which correlate with the 3 political ideologies:
Individualism: master morality
Absolutism: slave morality
Communism: herd morality
And the only one that doesn’t result in madness is Chesterton’s works, since they acknowledge the human condition and the vital importance of morality.
My question is what makes master morality any better than slave morality.
@@christophersnedeker2065 Master morality is meant to benefit the user, while slave morality is meant to be a burden on the user. Not complicated why Nietzsche hated Christian values.
@@ricardomilos3464 But according to so called slave morality the user gains the desirable attribute of being rightous. As socrates, who nieztche considered a proto christian said "I go to die and thou to live and God only knows who has the better lot"
Explain to my why master morality is more desirable.
@@christophersnedeker2065 I never said it was more desirable, I said why one might think it is.
To add, I am a Christian Atheist who gathers truth from both Nietzsche and Chesterton. They are by no means irreconcilable. If I can do it so can you!
A.K. Zakharya What is Christian Atheism exactly?
A.K. Zakharya great example of the problem of postmodernism: logical conguity doesn't matter
Is there such a thing? Either you're a Christian or an atheist, not both! Anyway, you are the personification of one of those characters described by G.K. Chesterton in his Orthodoxy! 😂 Good luck finding the true you!
No you are not a Christian Atheist unless you have multiple personalities