Enjoy! The Nietzsche-Schopenhauer relationship is unbelievably complex. If this video does well we'll do another video on it. Thank you for watching!

Nietzche loved hiking. This helped him overcome his headaches for a time. It probably also deepened his connection to Nature as something being there to experience and not as any philosophical concept.

and then Jung came and psychoanalyzed Nietzsche on why his mind collapsed :(

I wish Schopenhauer could've read Nietzsche's work.

Can you discuss the relationship between Wagner’s art and Schopenhauer? That would make a deeply fascinating video.

Whenever I get myself in the loop of denying the will and then denying the denial of the will, almost precisely as Nietzsche was presented here, with following Nature being healthy ("natural") I always find myself at the same crossroad. "Am I not also part of nature?" "Isn't my denial of the will, precisely because I am part of nature also part of nature? Is it not natural?" I think this basically comes down to a definition of natural. Is it some sort of "normality" that everyone should conform to, or is it anything that nature allows, which of course, is "everything".

“Nihilism” and “egoic tendencies “ can be located in both so-called “life-affirming” or “life-denying” stances; neither are immune, it seems, albeit perhaps for differing reasons.

Nietzsche seems to have had what Harold Bloom calls the "Anxiety of Influence". Schopenhauer: *Perfectly encapsulates the horror, barbarism and meaningless of existence". Nietzsche: And I took that personally. I have never laughed so heartily as I did reading Schopenhauer.

Music actually does activate similar areas in the limbic system as bedroom gymnastics. 😊 Schopenhauer figured this out intuitively, as it seems.

Schopenhauer is valuable to understand in his idea that Kant's 'noumenon', the 'ding an sich' that is 'behind each phenomenon cannot be multiple, but only one.

This is my favorite channel on KZfaq! Thank you for the marvelous content.

Great videos, I'd love to see one on Nietszche and "nature"!

I find myself, after contemplation and never staying married to any philosophy, as I continue to take in more knowledge and experiences. I tend to agree more with Schopenhauer’s epistemology, and most importantly his critique of Kant. Schopenhauer’s writings on “The Will” as his response and to Kant’s “things in themselves, as they really are” aka the “noumea” is just pure brilliance and solves most if not all of Kant’s, “Transcendental Idealism’s,” problems and holes. I would make the case, argument, that Nietzsche is just doing as still continues til this day where we are just responding whilst sitting on the shoulder’s of giants. Just hoping, and some thing that only few have ever had, is that original idea and contribution to human thought.

Yes, I have been waiting for this one!!!

I’d definitely like to see a video analysis of Nietzsches concept of nature. This discussion touched on some very relevant points of thought I’ve been having recently and it would be great to hear your in depth analysis on the topic.

An exploration of Nietzsche’s use of “nature” and “life” interchangeably would be a great topic for video. Thank you!

thank you, Weltgeist. very important work

I greatly enjoy this series. Thank you!

Over influence is de enemy of geniuses! Every poor devil gets some pleasures from scolding because it gives him a little intoxication of power since every complaint contains a small dose of revenge. Das beste revenge is to be unlike him who has performed the injury

Your videos are fantastic! Thank you!

Your videos just keep getting better and better. I like that you seem to relay the arguments/ideas of these thinkers in a leveled way, so as to not explicitly endorse one over the other. As much as I love reading and adopting insights of Nietzsche, there are moments like his seemingly abrasive (later) conception of Schopenhauer that makes Nietszche, as an individual, rather off putting at times. While there are legitimate criticism of Schopenhauer's philosophy and "conception" of life, I think it is rather harsh to do away with his ideas altogether. Thank you for your work!

Would definitely like to see some of your videos on Nietzsche’s views of ‘nature’

Yes, I'd be interested to hear about Nietzsche's use of "nature" and "life". I'd also be interested in more of his views on beauty and aesthetics. His relationship to Wagner would be interesting, as well. Thanks, I enjoy your videos :)

I realize schopenheaur just be misunderstood by others.. He is the greatessssst sometime..i dont know him but i want to learn about him..

I always like to remind myself that however much I may choose to love and embrace nature, nature is nobody's friend. It is indifferent and can crush anyone, everyone, at any given time. Yet, it pulls us. I think the trick is not to take oneself too seriously

I'd love to see more about Nietzsche and nature

Great channel, thanks!

I'd love to see a take on the concept of nature, I've been reading a lot of lewontin a levins for some of my essays, it's such an interesting insight into the self being conscious of itself and trying to differentiate itselves from the other

Schopenhauer revealed that life is poisoned, and Nietzsche tried to create an antidote.

Brilliant analysis. 👍

Although I know the subject but still it is a great video for people who stuck between nietzche and schopenhauer great work

2:15 translation: HE JUST LIKE ME fr fr

7:35 BARS 🔥🔥❤‍🔥❤‍🔥🎶🎶

What would Schopenhauer think of Nietzsche’s arguments?

Nietzsche's distaste for Schopenhauer's interpretation of life and prescriptions for denying the will comes from their utilitarianism. Schopenhauer wanted to minimize suffering, and given that reality holds many zero sum games which we must play, where wills conflict and not all can win and become great, asceticism reduced the conflicts and thus was the best way to do it. Don't seek power and greatness, don't expand yourself, don't harm for your own sake. We still see this, of course: any situation where people get into an argument today, the encouraged resolution is one in which people can both come away believing positive things about themselves, so long as peace and mutual care is possible with their view. Fighting and competition are discouraged, rank is denied, and those who enjoy those things are considered stupid. Stupid is the new evil. That's how Nietzsche concluded that Schopenhauer's philosophy was the end-state of Western philosophy since Socrates. Even the Enlightenment just rationalized Christian ethics, made that view secular. What's really interesting about this is how it works with subjectivity. Nietzsche himself was a perspectivist: he believed that all values are subjective. Today, many agree with this and use it as a standpoint from which they can criticize those who impose their values on others. But Nietzsche was ahead of this in recognizing that taking your own values and making them "small" in society essentially made those values, and made YOU, irrelevant, contributing to nihilism. The conflict between values was, and is, the social form of competition between wills, where the powerful could impose their views and direct the energy of society into bring those values into reality. Denial is not an option, and just because your values are subjective doesn't mean you cannot fight for them out of respect for some higher requirement for peace. Prioritizing peace is, in itself, a value that requires power to enforce its importance. Would you rather live in a society where strength is expected as you need that strength to win in conflict, or a society where you are given the prerogative to be peacefully weak so long as you make no impression on others? I think answering that question could help some people decide whether they prefer Nietzsche or Schopenhauer. They both did a fine job of explaining the real Western philosophical choice at its most basic level.

Each of them is right in his own way, but the philosophy of Schopenhauer and Carl Jung is closer to me.

Funny how it's the one who has so much to say and criticizes others so often who loses his mind in the end

We need a video on nature Weltgiest birro ur doing wonderful work lob from Bharat ( India )

i would like to see how this channel will cover something againts nietzche. how someone adressing nietzsche as degenerated like Max Nordau did on his book Degeneration.

It's been quite a while since I read Nietzsche, however, I think he was fairly accurate in his 'depiction' of the so-called 'great pessimist' (I agree with Nietzsche that Schopenhauer's philosophy was much more pernicious than a mere pessimistic attitude). That said, whether it's self-denial or self-exuberance, one is still mis-framing the problem and not self-transcending both the problem and oneself. It reminds me of the story of Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha) who went from extreme self-indulgence to extreme self-negation (ascetism) before realising, self-transforming and/or awakening, and thus breaking frame with the problem of how to transcend the self problem itself. Kind of akin to something like Aristotle's 'Golden Mean', in it's proper understanding. I have always immensely enjoyed Nietzsche's entire corpus, particularly when taken as a whole existential project which does make it difficult to understand any one statement, paragraph or book taken on it's own. Yes, there's obviously value in their surface meanings but the whole is greater than the some of it's parts, it's 'Gestalt' if you like, which makes the deeper meanings more elusive and certainly more complex, given we can fully penetrate his though at all? I still have doubts to this day whether he was truly serious with 'the will to power', or with, to paraphrase himself 'a philosophers attempt to solve all with one stroke, one equation, etc. Anyway, watching your videos brings back a lot of enjoyable memories and I wonder how he would speak to me now? Good luck with your channel and thanks for the content.

I agree, and when asked I believe that FN rejected the rejection of life in Schop. Zarathustra and his carrying Emerson's essays at the time: might be an example of his 'hope'. Just as his falling out with Wagner was also philosophical? Thanks so much for exploring these topics.

Everybody thinks so about Schoppi. (I like him since yesterday)

Keep going

Can we discuss Schopenhauer and physiognomy?

Ideas is the abstract way we humans assimilate reality, which for our limitations, we are denied. There is a limit of how much information a human can process and the abstract realm of ideas let us grasp the complexity of the universe.

Thanks

Great explanations! Keep up the great work. Harsh words by Nietzsche, but still one cannot disregard them easily.

Schopenhauer is a synthesis of Kant and Buddhism in the sense that such a combination can be deemed compatible with a kind of antinatalist gnosticism. Nietzsche is more of a pro-incarnation vitalist that sees life as a gauntlet to be defeated, a challenge to be fulfilled. Ultimately, the lynchpin is consent--Schopenhauer doesn't consent to life due to suffering which is why one must withdraw and Nietzsche maintains that the superimposition of preferential consent as a necessary prerequisite for embracing life with all its negative attributes is basically psychopathological cowardice and the disposition of a curmudgeonly hermit who actually isn't worthy of the challenge of life which is why one seeks reclusion from it. I think in order to reconcile these two attitudes one has to partition their respective concerns into 1. the *conceptual* limits of wisdom insofaras it is achievable in embodied form and 2. the *perceptual* importance of techniques for thriving in life. These are markedly different discussions points but are inextricable to both these thinkers. I "side" slightly more with Nietzsche but I think him dismissive and hasty which perhaps lends undue credence to Schopenhauer's nuanced defense of pessimism.

This is gonna be good.

Thank you for posting your videos. Every single one of them is so good including the ones that don't get much views because of the algorithm. As some one who never had the chance to go to college to study my passion I sincerely thank you for the content you produce.

Nietzsche is a black sheep among the philosophers because he thought like a visionary and not a machine for processing words.

very interesting. Schope and Neitch are probably my favorite philosophers.

I repect Schopenhauer because he is one of the only philosopher that actually believed what he said. Nietzsche seems like he was trying to convince himself of his own lie.

Differences of Circumstances. Differences of Perspectives. There is a time and a place for everything, and there are consequences if things are too far out of balance.

From a Buddhist perspective- Schopenhauer was on the right track, but stopped short. That is why his philosophy was so pessimistic. The Buddha taught that one can put an end to suffering and end the cycle of death and rebirth. Being new to philosophy outside of Buddhism, does anybody know why Schopenhauer didn't agree with what the Buddha taught about awakening? I know that he studied Buddhism, but I don't know enough about him to understand why he didn't become a Buddhist himself. It seems that he "gets it", but didn't go down that path. Great video! Thank you

Hello, WeltGeist, can you make some videos on Nietzsche take on Hegel? Hegel was the most influential philosopher during his time; Nietzsche wrote some good things on him, on the Gay Science. I am currently reading Beyond Good & Evil, and am planning to read the Gay Science. I have most of Nietzsche’s books, I am waiting for my order for the Genealogy of Morals and Ecce Homo 😅

We should choose one human who’s brain gets preserved and is kept running for as long as possible with the purpose to gather and save all philosophical knowledge and philosophize about if the question about why we are can even be asked or is just a product of our way of thinking that developed evolutionary and is therefore maybe a problem in itself.

Isn't it ironic that Nietzsche contemplated about Schopenhauer's sickness, while being struck with diseases for his entire life? Nietzsche's entire philosophy was built around his desire to overcome his physical weakness ("What does not kill us makes us stronger"), which he actually never managed to do. So, there is also good reason to do a psychoanalysis on Nietzsche himself, not to mention the paradigmatic event in Turin, which contradicted his obsession for mercilessness, one of the crucial elements, a cornerstone of his philosophy, in a revealing and almost tragic way. But Nietzsche (as many others were) was also misrepresenting or misunderstanding the idea of "nothingness" in Schopenhauers philosophy as nihilism. Being the son of a pious clergyman, Nietzsche devoted himself strongly to the obfuscation of Christianity (another case for Freud), while Schopenhauer, son of a rich merchant who committed suicide, dedicated himself to Eastern philosophy. He was reading the Bhagavadgita day by day every morning. His thoughts on the deepest meaning of "nothingness" are most touchingly expressed in the appendixes to "The world as will and representation", namely in "On death" and "On the metaphysics of love". These texts can hardly be interpreted as manifestos of nihilism nor as signs of weakness.

Schopenhauer: Will to Live Nietzsche: Will to Power Stirnerism: Live and Power are spooks, just have a Will.

I think Nietzsche was a hypocrite…primarily because if he was an honest critique his life would have actually proved it through the life he lived…words aren’t enough of what he really believed what he did about Schopenhauer. Nietzsche life lived seemed more Pessimistic than Schopenhauer’s. Funny that?!? Nietzsche never really renounced the philosophy of his teacher but condoned it by affirming more than joy but suffering through the Life he chose to live. If “Plato was a coward” to him…I think his views actually show a self-hatred that affirmed cowardice…nothing in Nietzsche’s philosophy has anything to do with how he actually lived. Compare both lives lives who was more of a pessimist?!? Who’s life seemed more willing to assert his what he believed in?

They're kindled souls that split apart. It's like watching a dying plant called Schopenhauer (72) leave a seed. The seed became a beautiful flower called Nietzche that got stomped at 44 and withered at 55 leaving us a new seed. What kind of seed are you? Seen or unseen? Becoming or unbecoming? Desire or control? Living or dying? Light or nothingness?

I think Schopenhauer stays on a deeper level describing the fundamental truth of existence, but Nietzsche's spirit directed towards (rather radically) the purpose of strength and growth. The glass is both half empty and half full, neither is wrong.

each followed it's naarrative fully. both perspectives are valid and at their meeting point no words are valid anymore, we reach the place of paradox which is the goal of every philosophy.

Nietz vs Ol' Shoppie > 2Pac vs Biggie

i guess ..in the end ..we all thinkers(had my exaple today irl also)we all want to eat eachother butts..after a `life of thinking we can t easly admit that we might be mistaking..i also don t belivve that about myself. but i tottaly agree to niezsche about learning and overcoming over experiences ,bad sittuations,bad things,resulting into a better man..u should do this with every occasion.after a bad situation from my life (after it happend)i imediatlly start to depate everything and think about it..even tho it sux..i m drunk now..hope i m understandable:D in the end just think and learn ..all the time.(even drunk :)).that s the most important thing to me..idk if ill help others..but niezsche made foar me a meaning.: allways try to be better until u die..check son goku:)) be the head be with u:))

If Nietzsche is talking about what is healthy and not healthy, rather than what is true and not true, then isn't he embracing Plato's concept of the noble lie?

as someone with borderline personality disorder, I read Schopenhauer to be able to step outside of my mind. I find my thoughts too extremely similar to Schopenhauer's And want to know where I can change my lens to live life happier. I completely agree with Nietzsche, some of his lines of thinking are just way too unhealthy and while true , serve no purpose to an individual that wants to encompass philosophy that make life worth living

To put it in succinct Nietzschian way: "And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who couldn't her the music"

When Nietzsche indicates that beauty exists to incite procreation, is he disparaging this biological function? Can this be affirmed? What of a more erotic/corporeal/biological aesthetic? Instead of art being used to “transcend” the body, can it be appreciated as something inextricably linked to it? Nietzsche seems to affirm the body extensively in his work, in my readings so far anyways. Would this align with a sort of erotic aestheticism/transcendent baseness/holy beast conception?

We currently live in a system of abstractions, legalese, and "logical" (that is to say, "internally consistent") contrivances. I think Nietzsche's "nature" is a pre-existing reality of which humans are born and part of first and foremost; and upon which our systems impose themselves, often (increasingly) at odds. Moreover, I think all nihilism, including Schopenhauer's is the mistaken attribution of qualities in our systems to "nature", as well as the defamation of and despair at said qualities. This is what Nietzsche is referring to when he talks about the will to life being turned against itself, in my opinion. Hopefully you do a video on what you think Nietzsche means by "nature". That would be interesting.

His change of opinion is probably due to personal, or is it disingenuous Which one is it ? You said both.

The tone and accent of the narrator gives Schopenhauer another reason for rejecting the will to life.

They did not faced the same world though.

Hola Weltgeists! I love your job! I want to offer you to do a spanish dubbing for your videos, so that you can have a spanish version of your videos on your channel or on a spanish version of your channel. Let me know if you are interested!

Nietzsche is correct to make this analysis of Schopenhauer

A look at.the modern world shows Schopenhauer was right

Should I read Arthur before Nieztchie? Or can I just jump right into Nieztche?

I guess quite hefty comment section 😂😂😂 too much interaction here 👍

Nietzsche is an interesting fellow. On the one hand he is easy to summarize. The will to power and a philosophy of the instincts sums him up more or less. And yet there are all these subtle wrinkles that I could spend the rest of my life thinking about and exploring and come to no end of them it seems. Question: Is there a way to affirm life without making everything about power or sex as the French intellectuals did?

That "first page" reader encapsulation is correct description of the writings of Schopenhauer even it works with his random chapter topics I read about this procreate and the passage of will by objectify beauty in masses to meet the ultimate need for the species as whole he really mixes his nhilistic attitude which is not healthy if u read along side other works like darwin and 😂 nerdy science guy and research Loving Med Student 😂😂😂 i indulge through the lines then there is this random drop of will 😂 and other stuff on procreation and reproduction and choosing the women are quite unacceptable to our improved concept of human rights but we know where he is coming from 😂Sorry But I Like Him Not Love Him 😂😂😂 Nice Vid 👍 ❤️❤️❤️ Loved The Brief Dive In Slow And Steady Manner 👍👍👍 Keep Diving 🌟 And Exploring.

I have been told that Nietzsche hated every philosopher. Hegel hated Schopenhauer . Nietzsche was a optiimist, Schopenhauer a pessimist. Nietzsche is to Schopenhauer as Aristotle is to Plato. 🤔😉

one should not merely accept life with the twilight of the idols, as nietzsche did ; one should in the first place deny Nietzsche

Nietzsche as an deep observer of man seen the univers from the very resistent way of nature,man and pleasures compaired with Schopenhauer wich have seen the univers from the very preservational way of nature,man and pain.Nothing wrong between the two philosofers then Nietzsche was much judgmental in his psichoanalize and psichoanalitics and did his best to avoid the stoic teachings of ancient philosofers,think that have been leed him to see the man from his dark side as narcisist does,(judgemental) an total oposite of Schopenhauer, a really great exprimer of inner and outer funktional universal systems as well of man

Seems like nietche have Sinestesia

as a deleuzean, i prefer the term "schizoanalyzed", since, you know, psychoanalysis itself is life denying. great video though lol

The more I know about Nietzsche, the more I believe that the major driving force behind his work was a fragile and hurt ego.

nietzscheasserts the will schopenhauer negates the will however subconsciously according to both the world is will like plato and the buddha consciousness not objective reality like aristotle

Nietzsche clearly chose to be more life affirming in his philosophy. So had to ultimately reject Schopenhauer.

Will to power is "becoming oneself". Maybe he felt it was becoming too popular with the masses and intellectual class. Social Darwinism e.g. Nationalism. Flight of The Valkyrie musta made him nervous.

nietzsche had the attitude of a 14 years old teenager he’s no where near his master intelligence with his assumption that all creatures have a will to power

Well, when you are sick, the world as representation will become a sick place to live in....

Schopenhauer says that beauty takes place of intellect-defying nothingness? And Nietzsche does not see this? Because he's so intellectual. This makes sense. But how does it translate into reality? If our goal in life is what we call truth, for there is nothing but truth hence life is truth, then that means truth can only be lived.

Schopie was crazy. His failures with women drove him off the philosophical cliff.

In fairness, the only sort of relationships Schopenhauer had were strenuous ones, including his relationship with himself.

Nietszche seriously misunderstood Christianity. Christianity is all about transformation and overcoming. The "Lord is Risen" and such, the fulfillment of desire, the "I make all things new." What he's really critiquing is Buddhism and it's emphasis on "extinguishing" and annihilation of desire. Schopenhauer was very taken with Buddhism toward the end of his life.

I think Nietzsche was kind of weak or a coward, he couldn't accept that life is inherently suffering and it should end

It all fell off after Plato, Aristotle, Jesus Christ and Marcus Aurelius. Everyone else is not worth reading

i think Nietzsche only disliked Schopenhauer ethics. Denying the will , Nietzsche is all about affirming the will. Also Schopenhauer is so fucking gloomy, if we exist only in the world of representations until we die and return to 'the one' the underlying field of subjectivity underlying all of nature and start incorporating all the suffering by those who die after us as they become one with me aswell. So nevermind this world inside space and time, it's all pointless just deny your will as a middle finger at the universe (yourself) and then die in peace. If you want the world as we know it, to change at all then you can not have this attitude towards it, even if it is only representations. we have only and will only exist in space and time, this does not mean that the self is an illusion, pain is still real and we must care about the world in space-time where we have seperate POVs even if it is temporary. You must remember to go back into the cave once you have stepped outside, since all you ever experience are the shadows on the wall, and it matters what the shadows do since they influence you. i think Nietzsche sees Schopenhauer's ethics as 'giving up' on improving the world, denying the hero who improves himself and his surroundings because afterall he is only existing temporarily in this human form and the will creates suffering and there is no point sucking a few drops from the ocean it will still be there so just give up and die without making it worse. This approach will increase entropy, chaos and so on. i think this is why he hates him and the great china man from Köningsberg too. i could be wrong though

suffering calls all of us to be positive and enjoy life and to not focus on the negative. the mind creates suffering making us focus on what we dont have other than what we already have. schopenhouer was a pessimist. thats why nietzsche rejected him. many young and underdeveloped intellectuals such as nietzsche like to give in to pessimism to seem edgy just like when teenagers go their their emo and goth phase during highschool.

Schopenhauer was not anti-life, he was only anti-strife in marriage. Stay single and avoid angry outbursts. 😂😊