Well done! I’m grateful for these longer, in-depth video essays. Ever read through the Oxford handbook of Nietzsche? Or Walter Kaufmann’s book on Nietzsche?
Thank you! No, I haven't read the Oxford handbook of Nietzsche. I've read Kaufmann's book and I use only Kaufmann translations of Nietzsche's works when possible. Kaufmann interpreted Nietzsche too individualistically but other than that he is an excellent place to start when studying Nietzsche. The footnotes and references in his translations are useful for exploring the context of some aphorisms.
Yes both Nietzsche and Machiavelli were using a similar paradigm. When you compare Nietzsche's influence from Heraclitus and Machiavelli's analysis of politics, they are both deeply compatible. The constantly shifting world of power and politics is very similar in principle to the dynamic world of nature and physics.
37:55 I need to point out here that the reference and mentioning of Physics/Physicists is perfectly in line with what the “laws” and lastly “honesty” that is, as I argue, the true “science” or “knowledge” which is the heliocentric and then non-centric universal order which began in 1543 with the Copernican publication of heliocentrism. This true science (knowledge) in stark contrast to the geocentric beliefs completely embedded and assumed within all ancient religion and thinking. Modern philosophy completely is tied to the Copernican Revolution which is the triple entendre of the true and honest movement of celestial bodies, the overturning of geocentric order through political revolutions, and the internal-spiritual change in what it means to be human.
This is what Nietzsche was saying with the quoted passage. Saying it in a way which is more palpable to the modern reader since many are not astute in the Renaissance era of Europe and what is called Scientific Revolution.
@@TheMachiavellians Like with any philosopher, their knowledge and reference domain expands between the ancients and the then-present day. Naturally since Nietzsche was astute in the classics/humanities given his high level of education, he was aware of the fundamental shift in thought with heliocentrism that eventually led to Calculus of Newton/Leibniz, Physics of Newton, Binary Code of Leibniz, Empiricism of Great Britain, Rationalism of the Continent, and these things all converging into what then was called the "Enlightenment" thinking that emerged late 1600's and into the 1700's.
First of all, I want to say that your videos are gold for Nietzsche readers. But since I don't understand some parts, I can't put it together. For example: Does Nietzsche think we are free or does he not?
Thank you, I really appreciate that! I responded to your comment already but it seems to have disappeared. Instead of retyping the whole thing again I can give you a link to a video where I already covered Nietzsche's model of agency. You can skip to that part if you wish. czcams.com/video/wFdwR1k7zNs/video.html
yeah, Nietzsche transformed himself in make-belief via writing. He was an ascetic loser all his life. Some of us actually value worldly living, rather than just saying how much they like it unconvincingly in books.
One thing to keep in mind is that Nietzsche was a sickly person his whole life and did not get “better” from that constant level of sickness. This was in stark contrast to say a Theodore Roosevelt who was sickly as a boy but then got better as an adult (until a few near death experiences as an adult himself). Both men represent an ethos of high achievement in their life i which I argue of opposite sides of the coin in that Teddy was a man of the BODY more than the mind while Nietzsche was a man of the MIND more than the body. Both were excellently smart and influential men on history and both had a sickly childhood which forever influenced their ethos for living in extraordinary ways.
You can also contrast Theodore Roosevelt with his nephew Franklin Delano Roosevelt because as I said before the “sickened state” of all these gentlemen led to extraordinary responses in creativity, willpower, and insight into humanity. I argue Nietzsche as a supreme intellect in the philosophical sense of being logical and clear. But, both Teddy and Franklin Roosevelts were superbly smart and influential in their own right for making change and making waves for world history.
Lastly, you’re judgment on Nietzsche shows why you should continue to actually listen to such people when they speak of the human condition and what represents truth or knowledge. Because you never know Fortuna and how the Wheel of Fortune may not land in your favor one day. And when that day arrives will you be shocked and awed by your humanity or will you be humbled by remembering that the great minds before us have lived their own personal trials, tribulations, and hells in which they, for whatever reason, have then tried to teach us and help us understand this all-too-human?
@@levinb1 that's like saying I should believe in God now because I may someday live in a foxhole. You seem to be prone to hero worship, i.e. 'great men', which may have been very common in earlier centuries, but it's more passe nowadays, for good reason imo. I don't think more suffering = more insight. Nietzsche was very other-worldy and had difficulty navigating this world. Not the best authority, but fanboys will be fanboys.
He once used this image: A tree cannot dig up its own roots without causing irreparable damage.😊
Excellent and high quality work of art - keep uploading videos like this and I will keep watching!!!
Well done! I’m grateful for these longer, in-depth video essays. Ever read through the Oxford handbook of Nietzsche? Or Walter Kaufmann’s book on Nietzsche?
Thank you!
No, I haven't read the Oxford handbook of Nietzsche. I've read Kaufmann's book and I use only Kaufmann translations of Nietzsche's works when possible. Kaufmann interpreted Nietzsche too individualistically but other than that he is an excellent place to start when studying Nietzsche. The footnotes and references in his translations are useful for exploring the context of some aphorisms.
Kaufman had no idea who or what Nietzsche was all about. He was a lukewarm person at best, derogatory at worst.
Nietzsche is one very worthy successor of Machiavelli.
Yes both Nietzsche and Machiavelli were using a similar paradigm. When you compare Nietzsche's influence from Heraclitus and Machiavelli's analysis of politics, they are both deeply compatible. The constantly shifting world of power and politics is very similar in principle to the dynamic world of nature and physics.
@@TheMachiavelliansYes, indeed!
It's important to point often to Emerson.
37:55 I need to point out here that the reference and mentioning of Physics/Physicists is perfectly in line with what the “laws” and lastly “honesty” that is, as I argue, the true “science” or “knowledge” which is the heliocentric and then non-centric universal order which began in 1543 with the Copernican publication of heliocentrism. This true science (knowledge) in stark contrast to the geocentric beliefs completely embedded and assumed within all ancient religion and thinking. Modern philosophy completely is tied to the Copernican Revolution which is the triple entendre of the true and honest movement of celestial bodies, the overturning of geocentric order through political revolutions, and the internal-spiritual change in what it means to be human.
This is what Nietzsche was saying with the quoted passage. Saying it in a way which is more palpable to the modern reader since many are not astute in the Renaissance era of Europe and what is called Scientific Revolution.
That's a really good point. The biggest barrier to understanding Nietzsche is grasping the paradigm he is using.
@@TheMachiavellians Like with any philosopher, their knowledge and reference domain expands between the ancients and the then-present day. Naturally since Nietzsche was astute in the classics/humanities given his high level of education, he was aware of the fundamental shift in thought with heliocentrism that eventually led to Calculus of Newton/Leibniz, Physics of Newton, Binary Code of Leibniz, Empiricism of Great Britain, Rationalism of the Continent, and these things all converging into what then was called the "Enlightenment" thinking that emerged late 1600's and into the 1700's.
First of all, I want to say that your videos are gold for Nietzsche readers. But since I don't understand some parts, I can't put it together. For example: Does Nietzsche think we are free or does he not?
Thank you, I really appreciate that! I responded to your comment already but it seems to have disappeared. Instead of retyping the whole thing again I can give you a link to a video where I already covered Nietzsche's model of agency. You can skip to that part if you wish.
czcams.com/video/wFdwR1k7zNs/video.html
Nice
Excellent content...
Nietzche went mad, good luck on following his method to self-knowledge. Lol
yeah, Nietzsche transformed himself in make-belief via writing. He was an ascetic loser all his life. Some of us actually value worldly living, rather than just saying how much they like it unconvincingly in books.
Creativity is always transformative. So is open-mindedness.
One thing to keep in mind is that Nietzsche was a sickly person his whole life and did not get “better” from that constant level of sickness. This was in stark contrast to say a Theodore Roosevelt who was sickly as a boy but then got better as an adult (until a few near death experiences as an adult himself). Both men represent an ethos of high achievement in their life i which I argue of opposite sides of the coin in that Teddy was a man of the BODY more than the mind while Nietzsche was a man of the MIND more than the body. Both were excellently smart and influential men on history and both had a sickly childhood which forever influenced their ethos for living in extraordinary ways.
You can also contrast Theodore Roosevelt with his nephew Franklin Delano Roosevelt because as I said before the “sickened state” of all these gentlemen led to extraordinary responses in creativity, willpower, and insight into humanity. I argue Nietzsche as a supreme intellect in the philosophical sense of being logical and clear. But, both Teddy and Franklin Roosevelts were superbly smart and influential in their own right for making change and making waves for world history.
Lastly, you’re judgment on Nietzsche shows why you should continue to actually listen to such people when they speak of the human condition and what represents truth or knowledge. Because you never know Fortuna and how the Wheel of Fortune may not land in your favor one day. And when that day arrives will you be shocked and awed by your humanity or will you be humbled by remembering that the great minds before us have lived their own personal trials, tribulations, and hells in which they, for whatever reason, have then tried to teach us and help us understand this all-too-human?
@@levinb1 that's like saying I should believe in God now because I may someday live in a foxhole. You seem to be prone to hero worship, i.e. 'great men', which may have been very common in earlier centuries, but it's more passe nowadays, for good reason imo. I don't think more suffering = more insight. Nietzsche was very other-worldy and had difficulty navigating this world. Not the best authority, but fanboys will be fanboys.