If you thought Nietzsche was a hypocrite, has this video changed your mind? In any case, thank you for watching! SUPPORT US ON PATREON: ▶ www.patreon.com/WeltgeistYT

“There is a false saying: “How can someone who can’t save himself save others?” Supposing I have the key to your chains, why should your lock and my lock be the same?” - Friedrich Nietzsche, 1882 (unpublished notes)

I think that Nietzsche being able to preserve through a miserable and hellish life and even to bring it forward with vitality and enthusiasm with his works - shows exactly how great of a strength he had. The strength to say "YES" to life, his Amor Fati. Truly an inspiring artist.

Nietzsche had a profound diagnosis of the world in which he lived, and also a profound insight into how the species could potentially evolve. He was just a mirror I think. He wasn’t the overman, but I think he had a good intuition for the potential of humanity.

I think with Nietzsche, contradiction is the very point of it all. And despite whatever personal weaknesses he may have had, it does not undercut the strength of the foundation of his philosophy. We might consider his forays into philosophy to be the expression of Nietzsche's own will to power. Indeed, one must be very powerful to lay waste to the entire schema of Western morality. A man who single-handedly broke his own chains of slave morality and led the way for potentially countless others to follow. No one's ever gripped my attention quite like he can. And you do a wonderful job at expounding on his works.

As Nietzsche said, the greeks must have suffered greatly to give way to such beauty. And Nietzsche? How weak he must have felt to write in such a pursuit of power. The will to power. "The task of painting the picture of life, however often poets and philosophers may pose it, is nonetheless senseless: even under the hands of the greatest painter-thinkers all that has ever eventuated is pictures and miniatures out of one life, namely their own - and nothing else is even possible" "Drive, in psychology, an urgent basic need pressing for satisfaction, usually rooted in some physiological tension, deficiency, or imbalance (e.g., hunger and thirst) and impelling the organism to action" The will to power is driven by ones lack of it. "For it is from the greatest of depths, that the highest must come to its heights"

I had the thought that Nietzsche’s own contradictory nature would have been seen by Schopenhauer as evidence of the working of the Will. Despite his sickness or because of it the Will forces Nietzsche to go beyond and survive.

He was sick his whole life and gave us his soul .... He is stronger than any of us can imagine. Nietzsche's strength is found all around us. He gave us the power he had, willingly. And asked only that we continue the work he started...

Thanks for this stimulating video. The reference to Freud reminded me that reading The Will To Power helped me find more insight than years of psychology and therapy! In the end we are all flawed and can only make the most of who we are and what we have!

Another great video. Life is full of contradictions, as is each individual. I think what you say here about Nietzsche being aware of his weakness has been quite obvious to me reading him, it is part of what makes his philosophy and personality endearing. It requires strength to strip everything back to reveal what is beneath, to do this even to oneself, and still create something great, which is what Nietzsche has done in his work and life. .

amazing video

Good stuff ✨

Can't wait for the Thus Spoke Zarathustra series

Amazing content

Great vid, dude!

On this topic I would recommend to read Nietzsche's letters, so we could see more deeply through the image he gave of himself (by reducing his sickness to an accident, not a part his true being). It is a fact that Nietzsche was aware of his own weaknesses and tryed to feel stronger. Although he committed, even more, the mistake he reproached Schopenhauer for: projecting the image of his personal longings and shortcomings onto the world. That's why I find true in Cioran's statement that Nietzsche (the man, not the prophet from the books) was a poor guy

All philosophers like to think of themselves as above and removed from the rest . And Neitzche was just another . There are many who are always more courageous than us , and many who are always more cowardly than us . it is only what the object of fear is , that differentiates us. but fear is common to all humans , and to all life itself . So to think of oneself as brave is just plain old pride . all of life fears for its existence . all of life fears pain and death . A soldier is no braver than a beggar . a soldier may be ready to die for his love of nation , but what he fears most is "what if this nation and people i love so much , dont love me back ? what if no one recognises how i am ready to give my life too " . A soldier doesnt identify with his body so much as he does with the idea of nation . so obviosuly death wont frighten him . Similarly a beggar doesnt care for insults , rejection and unrequited love , which a soldier so foolsihly cares about from his people . A beggar fears if he wont get his next meal . That is all life is . What we identify with most is what will cause most pain and also most pleasure if things go right . So nobody is more brave or more cowardly . All is void

Hi Weltgeist, nice to see you covering this topic again. I think part of the problem is that the classical representation of Socrates breaks down into two parts, the dialectical side - which does indeed speak to the view of him as a decadent force. But there is also the Stoic or proto Stoic element associated with Socrates, which allows his legacy to be used as a critique of decadence in later philosophy,including I suppose Nietzsche as well. He was the fore runner of really unnerving ascetics such as Epictetus or the Cynics for example. Really I dont know how these two elements may be resolved. I suppose one can be ascetically inclined and yet still have a good time! It suggests also that an "idealist" is not also ipso facto a "life denier" as Nietzsche seems to suggest. Another unrelated issue is Nietzsche's assumption that notions of the ideal and the transcendental must be fictional and thus anyone entertaining them must somehow be weak because unable to accept the "real". I personally think Nietzsche is simply wrong on this and that this is a dimension lacking in his philosophy though not in Socrates of course who speaks eloquently to it.

I love your videos! ❤️

Great discussion! First time I hear that when Nietzsche was well he also was at its peak of strength. I’ve perceived him as always having a weakening disease he had to struggle. My bias as a physician that once having a hereditary disease, it always decreases strength. But your point is that he was as strong as he was weak! That helped me to see why he would conceive two perspectives. Your analogy with Janus is well taken!

What I like about Nietzsche is he tells us exactly what is on his mind. He reflects on many things, critiques everything it would seem. I have heard the philosopher on "carefree wandering" describe him as someone who wears many masks. Perhaps the first postmodernist, his critique feels all encompassing and yet very specific. When reading him, one can't help but feel like he is predicting his near future and our present.. One gets the impression that he is sensing something very deep about the future. Can you do a video on Nietzsche the prophet?

Interesting. I remember now that I found Nietzsche at the latter part of my own illness, Chronic fatigue, depression etc. I had also before that decided to steer clear of doctors and take responsibility for curing myself. After a few years I figured out the health stuff and cured it all, while exercising as if nothing was wrong. But it was this very thing about Nietzsche that intuitively helped with my bad/decadent attitude and depression. Using his writing and my experience of recovery, really gave me a strong instinct for flipping negative to positive and vice versa if I needed. Sometimes it does not matter what is correct, only what is True(moral). Whatever it takes to grow strong, I could choose a perspective. I suppose the "what does not kill me.." quote was the main inspiration. I applied it everywhere. This is one of the most powerful gifts I received from Nietzsche's writing.

This was one of your best videos! People who have love for Nietzsche know that he possessed two natures, and that these two natures did not always coexist peacefully within the same being.

Like balancing on the line between chaos and order, Nietzsche straddled the border between being a genius and a madman. He fell into the abyss of the latter after 1889 but he had a productive run up until that. Wealthy and powerful elites are often as far removed from humanity, and the day to day grounding nature of a healthily productive life with other well-balanced loved ones - much like bureaucrats engaged in bullshit jobs in corporations or institutions. Both situations warp a sense of reality and corrupt through being surrounded by other conceited and deluded individuals and 'yes' people, rather than more salt of the earth types such as self-employed people, farmers, labourers and the like for whom being in touch with practical reality is the difference between food on the table and not. So if corrupted and conceited elites are the strong, who in their right mind would want to be 'strong'. It appears that the price for social status and economic security is compromising your being time after time until you're the shadow or shell of a more authentic human being. Some are more than willing to pay that price for the comfort, power and security of such an existence, but it seems exceedingly shallow on many levels, limiting like it is its own trap. The less glamorous life of the person aspiring to what we know as self-employed or self-determined middle or working class, while often exploited (being at the mercy of wider economic conditions and not in a position to tap into streams of wholly unethical income, such as smaller-rival destroying market aggression, engineered obsolescence, personal data exploitation, pharmaceuticals, etc, etc), a bit of good fortune, and having a band of loving family and friends around them, to me seems the one better for the heart, psyche and soul of an individual and for society as a whole. Less corrupting, potentially less exploitative, more attuned to basic human needs to allow people to thrive and live a purposeful life. (There ARE exceptions, but don't let sophisticated sophistry muddle the point. The 'strong' shouldn't be venerated for anything more than their good fortune - that they didn't make a mess of their luck, privilege and opportunities, ones that are often not available to most, certainly not without the ethical compromise rabbit hole). So perhaps the down-trodden and luckless hardworking and enduring types can think that, in a way, Neitzsche existed as an intellectual elite who despised those without intelligence, initiative and drive, as well as as a genius, but also, as one of us, driven mad, in part, by a mad world, only getting madder.

If they event meet in person, Plato would slam him to the ground 🤣

8:05 It takes one to know one; and thru this, colors may weave into spires of flame, bringing daybreak as a fading sunrise challenges the dark.

Ecce Homo: Why I write such Good Books / "I am one thing, my writings are another matter.--"

Thx👍

WILL YOU PLEASE MAKE A VIDEO THAT EXPLORES NIETZSCHE'S RELATIONSHIP TO DOSTOEVSKY'S WORK AND WHAT REALIZATION MAY HAVE LED NIETZSCHE TO KISS A HORSE, CLEARLY RELATED TO THE HORSE IN DOSTOEVSKY'S NOVEL: CRIME AND PUNISHMENT

DAMIIT!! THAT MUSTACHE!!

I think a clearer window into the kinds of questions raised in this video can be gained by seeing N. as principally a social critic and secondarily a philosopher. In philosophical terms, the concepts of "decadence", "weakness", "strength", "health" and so on are of limited value. These are all qualitative terms with fluid meanings from culture to culture, and even from person to person. For example one person's sexual decadence is another person's freedom from received taboo and willingness to question convention. Was my Grandmother "strong" because she survived as a poor woman and raised two healthy children with almost no resources during the 1930s Depression? Yes; but wait: she was also an unquestioning Christian all her long life. Does that then make her "weak" instead? In strict philosophical terms, we are almost running around in circles with these mutually exclusive dichotomous pairs. However, N. knew quite well what he was doing: diagnosing late-19th c. European culture. And he was probably the most insightful and articulate of critics in that regard.

A strong person is good, noble and impressive; He must require strength because otherwise he will never attain power: Power to him who power exerts.

I believe we should look at Nietzsche as a physician a surgeon and I think your channel mentions this or probably some other channel. The reason I say this if we look at his critique or arguments as a physical action that a surgeon performs on a patient who needs it, it starts to make sense. Because otherwise how can one get their thoughts across about anything; there have to be tests (his own life), there has to be a diagnosis (critiques and understanding), and then there has to be a resulting action (his prescriptions).

Nietzsche was at least strong enough to recognize that he was weak, and outlined the reasons why he was weak in hopes that someday others would not be weak like him. Criticizing Nietzsche for being weak while he criticized others for being weak, ironically, is what a Sophist would do, and would likely make Nietzsche proud.

Make a video about Epictetus

Nietz: I'm so infectious, I make medicine sick!

To be authentic is to acknowledge one is a hipocrit. It may not need be in a great way, but merely a small one. It is a kind of imperfection. To be authentic is to acknowledge one's imperfections. That is what I have thought lately anyway, looking outward at the world, and looking inward, without bias.

nice video\

Dialectics is not merely when one makes arguments. It's a back and forth. He asserts things in his books. He doesn't engage in the back and forth. It's not a debate.

_"I am the chosen one!"_ - *Nietzsche*

dont mind me just commenting for the algorithm

Could you update the playlists sometime? You have a whopping 115 videos now but the playlists only have 23 videos in them, 1/5th of your total. I’d love to play everything you’ve made on Schopenhauer. Looking forward to it.

Thanks! I wonder if something is lost in translation? Argue, persuade, discuss, debate, preach, trick, explain,etc. Usually, when I think of argument, I think of two people in a two car accident.

I think it's fitting that he ended up as a catatonic madman, a helpless creature he would've had zero compassion for.

Hey Weltgeist, do you happen to use a voice filter? If so where are you from :)

Obviously he was. Obviously he wanted to be strong. Obviously he attempted to identify the influences which he perceived to be conducive to weakness as he experienced it. Obviously certain types have a problem with that. Why is that?

"We understand this sometimes, and stand amazed at the whirl and the rush and the anxiety and all the dream that we call our life; we seem to fear the awakening, and our dreams too become vivid and restless, as the awakening draws near. But we feel as well that we are too weak to endure long those intimate moments, and that we are not the men to whom universal nature looks as her redeemers. It is something to be able to raise our heads but for a moment and see the stream in which we are sunk so deep. We cannot gain even this transitory moment of awakening by our own strength; we must be lifted up- and who are they that will uplift us?" -nietzsche “Schopenhauer as Educator

The most important concept I ever learned when studying Nietzsche is this. You see, when Socrates, Aristotle, Kant, and most religions built a two-dimensional philosophy, Nietzsche on the other hand created a three-dimensional philosophy or religion. Aristotle and the rest created a list of principles or ideas that could easily be put into a chart or a list of principles. When reading Nietzsche on the other hand, you have to imagine a pool of stars on the ground. From this pool of stars rises and forms a humanoid. This humanoid of stars continues to form until it can run a few steps and then shatters into the puddle of stars again. This happens over and over again for an eternity. You see Nietzsche creates these stars by creating inverted and alternate concepts than the ones we believe in. He reaffirms healthy ideas and then creates their opposites. These create the Rorschach test you personally peer into eventually.

Nietzsche, as the fusion of artist and philosopher, plumbs the interior depths of his soul and excavates scathing psychological insights related to the world around him, and, as a consequence suffered immensely from his exposure to that interior darkness. Profound rumination on insecurity only leads to further insecurity, it seems, but maybe this was Nietzsche’s sacrifice rather than an error or hypocrisy.

Nietzsche was immensely weak, but paradoxically at the same time-immensely strong! He realized his vitality after his intense illnesses of which he explained in the dawn of day, and Ecce Homo. He was in a sense, the union of the decadence of a intoxicated age and the strength of a new youthful- immense age.

He and Raskolnikov in "Crime And Punishment" by Dostoevsky are insanely similar.

Whenever I read Nietzsche, I can found similarities between his philosophy and Buddhism, on one hand Nietzsche philosophy bring golden age of europe while Buddhism bring golden age for atleast 800-1000 year in India before it's extinction there

Nietzsche is not a hypocrite. He called out his own weakness, as he did with other philosophers. Neither Socrates nor Plato would call themselves weak. Nietzsche is not a hypocrite

Not every expression of thoughts is arguing. When you share knowledge to a child, you don't have to argue with him. Teaching can't be achieved just by giving orders, you have to provide some insights. That doesn't make you weak.

Hm. When he wrote "Ecce Homo" his grandioity was at it's peak, as the titles of the book's chapters shows. But what kind of condition would cause a man to somtimes lay in bed ill for long periods of time, and at other times hike in the mountains for eight hours a day? Some peole say that both his sickness and his mania can be atributed to late stage syphilus. To me, though, this sounds like a classic bipoler. Many freat writors have been bipolar. Of course, being bipolar does not make you smart or talented. But, if you are already those things when your mental conditions manifest, they can result in works that are amazing, if sometimes rather strange. At any rate, "Ecce Homo" was written not longbefore his total mental breakdown. And it kind of shows.

Nietzsche also said “Is man one of God's blunders, or is God one of man's blunders?” so that says it all. The man reasoned from the limited ego self not knowing about the illusion of separateness at least for some part of his Life before he woke up. He was trapped in his mind using way too many words for that which is so shockingly simple. Truth is One cannot understand the purpose of the universe through the lens of fragmentation. You can choose to live in Naraka, or, choose to live in Nirvana. Somehow I feel he lived in Naraka. Either way. The one and only meaning of Life is Companionship i.e. Love. It's that simple.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." RWE

Freddie N was a preacher's son. He was a moral philosopher, focused on "what ought" instead of "what is" which, in my book, makes him a preacher, a salesman, a self-righteous finger-wagging scold, and not a good philosopher. Where he does touch upon "what is", it is always infected by his feeling of "what ought". That makes for sloppy philosophy. His entire body of work is an opinion piece; an eloquent, moody, rhetorical opinion and no more.

"There are spirits all about us, each moment of life has something to say to us, but we will not listen to the spirit-voices. When we are quiet and alone, we fear that something will be whispered in our ears, and so we hate the quiet, and dull our senses in society." -nietzsche “Schopenhauer as Educator”

Nietzsche referred to Spinoza as a "sickly recluse of a man". Is this not a projection? And we might find much projection in what Nietzsche said. He was wrestling with his own internal conflicts. And like many conflicts, may have produced some profound insights.

5:25 to answer, what would our philosopher value, desire, and suppress. Based of of their own reasonings they will give what it is worth giving. He is as he is as I am that I am. Just who the hell do you think I am????

he was so sick but he wrote those ultra strong books. that's the greatest strength

Yes sadly

we need classical music played in the background

You analysis is superb amazing I'm I terested what your favorite philosophy is . I like nietche but I am more of a hedonist combined with the calmness of a budha

For a man concerned with going beyond good and evil he was one walking dichotomy of dualism(paradoxically quasi-theological) you know it's not because M Knight Shamalan declared that his film "The Happening"was supposed to suck as according to him it was an hommage to cheesy B-movies that it makes all of a sudden a good movie,Nietzsche's work it seems can be viewed as his "other world"separate from not only himself but also of accountability where he could find refuge just like Plato or later on the Christians,also he offers no alternatives to any of the things he refutes the "free spirits" are supposed to crap out a new society with unknown tools,they must change the way people think without dialectics and they must acquire power by being born masters without having anyone above them,odd.

Enantiodromia. Might it not be possible for someone to decay, rather than grow, from agreeableness into strength?

Imagine commenting your thoughs and getting a good discussion going. HA how weak.. no, no , no wait wait you don't understand it's irony...

Only those who've walked the path of great suffering knows happiness,only those who've known corruption to self first-hand knows about purity... In similar regard, Nietzsche's claim to be of two worlds makes sense as who else would it be if not the person who've seen and tasted dirt to know of its harmful effects.

A smoker can rightfully say smoking is bad, even when he can not drop his habit.

Even if you find out most of humanity is wrong, on the wrong course, in the wrong state of mind, headed for the wrong future, most will stick to the false comforts that these things provide.

Its a great problem, both in phylosophy and religion, when people who are generaly on the begining of the stairway up, hold on to any piece of information as if its an absolute truth, unchanging, always useful and full of meaning. In this context ideas are alive and they eventualy expire and die out, in other words we outgrow ideas the same way we outgrow clothes which in various sizes are very useful at certain periods in life. His accusations should be taken in wider context of the question he explains, it should be an example or illustration of situation, its not an insult for Plato or Socrates or any of their followers, just a another perspective (perhaps on a higher level) to the situation that is being explained trough their examples.

Good one, keep up with Nietzsche, but more important topics, not side ones.

What you mean in the Nietzsche quote: " in my six-and-thirtieth year. . . ." is certainly "in my thirty-sixth year . . . " In German, we use to speak the numbers between twenty and hundred in the reversed order, for instance, "sieben (7) und dreizig (30)" for 37.

"We are more willing and instinctive slaves of the hard day's work than mere living requires, because it seems to us more necessary not to be in a position to think. The hurry is universal, because every one is fleeing before himself; its concealment is just as universal, as we wish to seem contented and hide our wretchedness from the keener eyes...-nietzsche “Schopenhauer as Educator

Funny how the man’s philosophical weakness is more or less identical with his physical weakness, and quite apt.

If you ask me, I'd say Nietzsche believed himself to be weak and came up with this Hinterwelt idea of the Übermensch to strive for as an escape from his self-esteem issues. Given what I know of him - very little, mind you - he seemed to be saying "don't make the same mistakes I do." He had high standards, for himself and others. The man is excused if you ask me - knowing the right thing to be and not being able or willing to do the work to get there should not bar someone from discussing the topic, as it remains salient to the person in their own trap. Hypocrisy isn't the worst thing in the world, folks. In other words, "I don't need to be a prostitute to know that I'm getting fucked." My two cents, before watching.

I can't help but think that Nietzsche isn't really a philosopher but a 19th century Twitter user.

Can you define what he meant by decedent

" He divines remedies for injuries; he knows how to turn serious accidents to his own advantage; that which does not kill him makes him stronger."

.. as a German Biologist and Pythagorean - I had the miraculous chance in 1979 to interview Karl Schlechta on his experiences of Nietzsche. I was stunned that this Giant of Mind immediately loudly exclaimed - he never ever wanted to meet the Man Nietzsche in person. I was stunned. Schlechta dis ciphered himself the scribblings in Jena - and did not like the Person Nietzsche. Paul Lanzky may be the person telling and describing how the Man Nietzsche was. He could not get along with him either. Köselitz suffered as Masochist under the Dark Mind of Nietzsche. Syphilis may have created the Euphoria Mind Dope - a Hornets nest... Paul Julius Möbius.

Dear Weltgeist! Weak? Strong? What a stupid question!

He admits the following in Will To Power, "We want the opposite of what strong races do. Understanding is an ending." He also writes the highest type is he who has laid down laws to be followed for thousands of years. He only proclaims himself the herald of the lightning...well...also dynamite.

Plato and Socrates fought wars, what did Nietzsche do? While accusing them of being weak and lowest of the low?

That Schopenhauer quote wasn't saying 'you don't have to practice what you preach.' He was saying- yes, you should do what's right. But even if you fail, you're still allowed to tell others what that right way is.

many great men don't get out of bed for days at a time, lower lows and higher highs then the steady state man.

Zarathustra is the complement of Nietzsche. The former is well while the latter is sick.

George Carlin pointed out _ "hopefully" is not a real word.

Philosophy is simply about making observations. It's not preaching, so there's no obligation to practice. The extent of your obligation is honesty to yourself.

The things which one thinks is right but cannot be followed by himself should be left open to discussion and not imposed upon anyone as an ideology one should follow, atleast not from the one who has himself failed in that regard.

I wonder which philosophers today would Nietzsche consider a free spirit. Would a free spirit really follow Nietzsche’s example or continue Nietzsche’s grand project instead of just doing their own thing?

1) Expressing distaste for dialectics does not mean expressing distaste for arguments in general; Nietzsche was enemy of the wordplaying that dialectics produce, and wanted to embrace a total overview of everything by being brutally honest, insightful and ''suspicious''. 2) one could say that ''X is true/right/evil/useful'' etc, but that does not imply that one should follow/embrace X. Why? well, one can know what is good for themselves, NOT the others. Plus, Nietzsche wanted every human to create values for themselves only, NOT for all people. Basically, this means that ''the strong do not need to make arguments'' is a statement; but it doesn't say anything specific about Nietzsche himself - it only could mean that he WILLS to be strong (regardless of him ever achieving it or not). 3) to me, one basic weakness of Nietzschean philosophy is that he takes the Human for granted in order to reach the Overman; in fact, the Human is still something we should work for. I'd really like to watch a video about that :)

Don't you think that argumentation perhaps developed out of the necessity of living in a polis? The sophists surely made their living in this manner and Socrates preferring to know the 'truth' concerning things/himself used argumentation as a means for getting at it. From all accounts Socrates could probably have used other means for getting what he wanted. I'm not sure but I do partially agree with your interpretation. Also, with regards to his so-called hypocrisy, etc., did not Nietzsche also say that “There is a false saying, 'Whoever cannot save himself - how can he save others? ' But if I have the key to your chains, why should your and my lock be the same.”

That little booger though weakness was repulsive. Interesting because everyone is weak relative to something even if it is a hypothetical being. I see him as putting on a tough front.

I think you should practice what u preach, and be careful not to preach what u can’t or won’t practice. At least to the extent that ideas (and this is part of my philosophy) don’t matter if u can’t prove them, or demonstrate them, put them into material reality in some way-what u do in reality, thru your behavior should correspond with your ideas. What is the point of ideas, or philosophy, if they don’t connect directly with life, literally? If philosophy is about helping us to think in order to live more abundantly then ideas which can be lived are the important ones, and it follows, only the ideas which you WANT to preach have value. Since ideas would have no merit to me if u didn’t want actively to put them into practice, that answers the question whether you should live your philosophy or not: It’s not even philosophy if the idea can’t be applied literally to living

Those who can't do teach others

I think Nietzche wanted to cure himself by curing himself first of decadance. He might have been aware of the fact that if he fixed himself, he would lead the free spirits through his fiight. It may also be that he wants the free spirits to not write about the changes in morality they want to bring but to show it like the people of power he thought would do. He had insight. He knew the troubles he was in. He wanted to get out until he got a venerial disease.

What does he means with weakness and decadence? Are they bad? Is there something bad about weak people? Woman are often called weak.

Honesty... you admit it or you don’t. I am weak and so what?

When it comes to Nietzsche i prefere to stick to the same opinion as Lev Tolstoi: "What does it say about society, that such an insane and evil man, makes a teacher of himself?"