It’s a great way to envision your life.

There’s no reason to assume it’s literally true at all, but such a premise encourages me to make really big meaningful moves in my life. To make life a wonderful work of performance art.

It's a bit tedious

I'm definitely a layperson and try not to come off as anything but. But I feel like I had arrived at something similar to the eternal return unthinkingly, just off the idea of deja vu and that so many things recur coincidentally that at some point their meaning (or the gut feeling about them) becomes more than coincidence, and from there the events become inescapable. Though in terms of a more applicable eternal return, it's definitely easier to see it expressed in general themes of life rather than specific events or even specific coincidentally recurring events. This is a surprisingly digestible video and it actually helped clear up some things I didn't understand about Nietzsche.

I mean, you can only feel life once at a time, so the boredom could only truly be felt if there was some immortal soul, which on an individual level seems like a silly death anxiety compensation. (If you’re bored, then you’re boring.) It’s kinda like when people get all freaked out about this reality possibly being a simulation. Is this life not salient enough for you? Wouldn’t it also mean that the reality outside ours was quite possibly a simulation? LIVE! HAVE LIFE!

hahhahha

"so yeah this is like the millionth time we've met... maybe haha"

It is simply hilarious. I love you for pointing that out.

,5 is the blackout student who’s having the best day of his life. ,75 is your roommate who watches pewdiepie and Jreg.

rather 1.5 speed :D

Ironically that mindset is kinda the source of the plague of emo-teens who used Nietzsche as a justification for their own self-indulgent solipsism, no? I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying at all, I just think we have to recognize the risk that comes with Pewdiepie's method

"It encourages the audience themselves to engage with the text." Your word in god's ear, as we say in german. Nice to see somebody able to bring up such a high level of idealism. Usually this is absolutely not what people do when they start to "do their own research" lol

@@hazardousjazzgasm129 What's interesting to me about what you said is the fact that the cliché of Nietzsche as the philosopher of edgy teens implicitly states that teens (or readers in general) seek out and take from texts only interpretations that affirm one's prior beliefs. Also considering that there are not only nihilist but also life affirming ideas from the works, whether teens internalize an interpretation of "will to power" or "eternal reoccurrance of the same" their beliefs would not have markedly changed from reading, they would just have a more sophisticated concept of their beliefs. Unless you think Nietszche's work is a kind of information hazard which can turn impressional teens into anti-social adults, dissuading people from reading it doesn't really make sense to me.

@@alexanderleuchte5132 I mean "doing your own research" into philosophy realistically doesn't pose much of a hazard to others unlike some fields like, I'm sure we all know, immunology. The whole ideology of "doing your own research" in light of today's information climate is becoming more and more like "find arguments that affirm your bias" and this is an intractable problem of human nature so society will have to find some way to mitigate the risks, (i.e. better education and media literacy) if at all possible. I mean the worst that can happen is that teens will start to make and share Nietzsche memes. To me, I say; what's so bad about that?

@@hazardousjazzgasm129 thats because they interpreted his work before reading or researching it

Hans winks 😉

Aren’t we all?

Just like it says on the tin?

😂😂😂

@@DylanJ.Holmes hans "vinks" ;)

Yeah that was a weird coent to make tbh.

Plus he has an overwhelmingly male audience anyway

It's just a superficial comment. Anyone could make it. Don't let it take away from the video

It's not really strange to assume the most famous youtuber orchestrates every move accurately, but eh... it does sound a bit pessimistic to assume it's just that. Two things can be true.

@@7th808s Yeah. He never said it as something condemnatory

GOT EM

if this video ever finds out it's going to return again and again, always playing the same way, it'll probably be fine with it just for this moment

No one said is was unbelievable...

I thought the way he said that it might have been to appeal to a female audience was weird. Are people not allowed to talk about their wedding without it being seen as pandering? He was directly using it to explain why he agrees with the philosophy, so it's not like it was off topic. Such a weird thing to say.

As long as people learn something from it. Not just say they are into philosophy and not apply any of the philosophies to their life

Didn't most of the west intially get re acquainted with the ancient Greeks through mostly ancient Roman and especially Islamic translations and commentaries? Very little of the original text remains and what we understand about those Greek figures are off commentaries and quotes by later writers.

Agreed. Stephen Batchelor's book "Buddhism without Beliefs" is the only mainstream work I can think of that got buddhism down accurately

They are using them to find answers of his life, takes awhile. A one off. A very important person. That's old. They just don't care then do everything the Bible tells you not to do, love of fate. Amor fati. Nihilism. Simple. Regardless of faith, the Bible has a similar idealism. Schopenhauer is an example of a nihilist who rejected Kants doctrine. And he just wanted to and justified this as his will to live. His partner, Kant rejected him.

Nietzsche and Buddhism: Ironic affinities by Robert Morrison; Oxford University Press, excellent read.

Where does he criticize Buddhism? I only remember light praise.

Right? I haven't watched PewDiePie's videos in a good while now, but what he said about them at the end was kind of an insightful burn, if that makes sense

@@vitormarques6670 I dont know why but i hate philosophers. I am kind of a philosopher myself so i hate myself atleast that part of me. Everything is irrational. That is why i hate philosophy. Science is much better and has always done good to humanity. There is no need for religion, philosophy in the future. It will either be proven as false or it will be a part of science. I feel like philosophy is like mixing art and science. However that is something i call an opinion and that i see as garbage. Art and science is cool, philosophy is shit. Philosopheres have little dicks. Scientist have big dicks. That is the difference. Philosophy and religion is the same, but with some minor differences. You should not be offended it is not a personal insult it is my critics against your thinking and it deserves to exist. I dont understand it i wish there was a type of philosophy or science that could go against the bias of this way of knowledge. I dont think it is shit after all, but it has a lot of problems innit.

@@djrbdbdndjwjk5039 you might not be aware but you have to thank philosophy for being the origin of science. Your lack of awareness about this very fact shows that you're far from being able to call yourself a philosopher

Ok i want to die. I wish science could save me. I am too lazy to live. Maybe there is some philosophy that can help me finnish. I dont know after all what is the impostor of knowledge? Is it realy science or is it religion or is it philosophy or is it emotions or is it spirituality. Who should we follow? I love myself, but hate myself. The fake self is who i hate. The part of me i dont see as a part of me. Also i hate some people in the spirituality community it seems like they do shit that they dont understand themselves. I am actualy spiritual. I believe that there is something more behind. I hate knowledge because it is not fun anymore. It is just chaos. I wish i was depressed so i was motivated to die. I hope i can find out if suicide is the cure or not. I am getting quite desperate. I have no time left it is running out There is just so many other things that are better. I wish i was barely mortal. Almost immortal and that time does not exist. I think after all life is something precious. But i think suicide is part of it. I dont think i have anything to do here. I wont satisfy this world it will satisfy me atleast. Maybe that is the solution. I think afterlife could exist. It should not matter anyways i dont see why i should live everything is in fog. I need some clarity. I want to disapear maybe if there is afterlife i would just go to hell. Because i feel giving up is part of me and my personality. For me this is what makes me happy. I dont see any happiness that is real and forever. It is time that destroys it. I dont know. I dont understand i try to be aware of everything by watching as much youtube possible. I enjoy skiing. Of course i will die of age. I dont know i feel like i am a part of a chess game and i have no choice in life and do something not out of free will. I dont see why happiness is ok after all. It is not real enough. It is like the emotion is dead. Drugs are stronger. Ok I think i wish i was free from everything. After all happiness is good, it is just how you achieve it that changes. If i was given the best life and could be free doing what i want exactly like i wanted then i would say yes. But i dont know anything. That is the reason. I dont even know why i should or how. It is a puzzle. I think about being dead and time. Ok i dont think i am different we are all the same. No one is 100 pro bad. I think i should be 100 pro bad. I think i could become god of destruction. Pro bad is good. I dont think it is wrong. Maybe that is where morals blend in. That is why i feel like i am in a game of chess while being in checkmate. Everything should disapear. I dont understand how anything good can come fron this terrible mess. I think i have enough reason to live in this moment. It is because i am irrational and naive and dumb. I dont know what to believe in. I dont know it seems like this is a endless loop. Atleast i would see anything big as evil. I think sometimes being in control gives more freedom than being free. I think i want to die is because i am very confused and insecure, so it is for a simple reason. I am a materialistic person. I find more meaning in happiness than anything else. I dont think life was made to be simple and lazy. It was not meant to be delusional and hedonistic. It was meant to be a training and a way of reflection and character. We are not immortal for a reason. Unlike others i dont think it would be hell to be immortal. I think it is to better fit the gameplay. The gameplay needs to be a certain way for it to work.

@@vitormarques6670 ok 🤦

pickme

Truly very simple!

@John Caraway I second your thoughts on Twilight of the Idols as a great entry point. That book can definitely be seen as a sort of "Greatest Hits" book of his. While there are some new maxims and aphorisms in there, Nietzsche deliberately wrote it as a sort of summation of his main ideas, particularly from Genealogy of Morals. It's also one of his shortest books, although none of his books are super long if I remember right. It's also loaded with some of his most important concepts that the mainstream usually ignores. While everyone has heard of "God is Dead" or "Should you stare into the abyss..." I don't see too many people talking about his Four Great Errors or the infamous "Reason in Language/Faith in Grammar" section at all. As a side note, his essay "On Truth and Lies in a Non-Moral Sense" is another fantastic place to start with him, and if you don't read that essay in your class, I highly recommend you read it on your own time. It's very short compared to the books, it has a fascinating intro that sorta parodies a Christian cosmological origin story (think Genesis from the Bible), it's often used to support the idea that Nietzsche was a proto-postmodernist and it has one of his most famous and important lines: "Truth is a mobile army of metaphors, metonyms and anthropomorphisms..." Hope this helps!

@S L Ah, that's interesting. For some reason I had gotten the impression that his writing is near impenetrable without an explainer. I will have to check them out!

@John Caraway Ah yes I forgot about Nietzsche's concept of ressentiment. I had a really interesting introduction to that in the book Australia Day by Stan Grant. Grant, an Aboriginal man, draws heavily on Hegel and Nietzsche in his own thinking, and discusses the tension he feels between, on the one hand, the desire to pursue justice for the wrongs committed against his people by colonial Australia, and on the other hand his fear of turning into Nietzsche's ressentiment-man, who imprisons himself in a cell of resentment and pain, unable to ever move forward. Thanks for the reading recommendation!

@John Caraway Hah! There must be some mysterious connection between Grants and Nietzsche.

Thx

Philosophy tube got me interested in philosophy when I was younger, but my study at university brought me to a point where I realised a lot of their videos were really shoddy... such a shame. But I'm glad we have Carefree Wandering!

I recommend philosophycuck and plasticpillz

@@sofo02 Yeah they're quite good too

Nah you haven't seen enough philosophy channels.

@@chesscom6199 can you recommend any?

I assume you tried reading Thus Spoke Zarathustra? If so, that is the worst book of Nietzsche’s to read first. It is like an allegorical condensed form of all his prior writings. I suggest starting with Twilight of the Idols, or the Antichrist. Much more readable.

Hey, thanks for keeping up the chain

deleuze reads himself into the philosophers he interperets. i have read his book on Spinoza( not impressed) i look forward to reading his book on Nietzsche.

@@Djordj69 I think he has two books on Spinoza (also two on Nietzsche), however you're right they are not as impressive (at first) as Nietzsche and Philosophy.

@khafuuzum Good professor, cloaked in the false modesty, displays large quantities of hierarchical superiority of an academic practicing "royal philosophy" _von oben._ He's light years away from nomadic, non-hierarchical thought of DeleuzeandGuattari. He wouldn't understand how "delirium is a general matrix of every social investment".

​@@exlauslegale8534 I'm hoping this is parodying the sort of dogmatic hero worship Deleuzianism which Deleuze himself abhorred (in ways which informed the genesis of Nietzsche and Philosophy!), quite aware of the dangers of being and becoming a prophet. Whatever the case may be, as I'm not here to entertain this posturing, that's all I'll say.

he wouldn't be able to defend them properly anyway, it's pure nonsense

So I was hallucinating when I read On Truth and Lies in a Non-Moral Sense or The Genealogy of Morals?

​@@ATigo-nu9xtmidwits cannot even provide a Example

Pewdiepie's interpretation wasn't "incorrect" per say, but it was more like it was incomplete. He didn't take his reading of Nietzsche far enough to a more logical conclusion. Sure, we should all foster a more life-affirming attitude and "shout a holy Yes to life" as Zarathustra put it. But Nietzsche's philosophy isn't just "stop to smell the roses", it's more about affirming life by exiting your comfort zone, embracing struggle and challenge as a means to overcome them and better improve yourself and the aforementioned life-affirming attitude. Pewdiepie's interpretation, while nice and semi-accurate, can easily suggest a happy yet complacent lifestyle that Nietzsche would not approve of.

@@hazardousjazzgasm129 well said

In a sense, Pews example was the antithesis of what Nietzsche was talking about

@@hazardousjazzgasm129 Not to be that guy...but, it is "per se"

@@EWOKakaDOOM You're that guy

Yea that was a strange and unnecessary comment. Oddly negative and a non-generous assumption of Pewdiepie's motivation, which, again, was a totally unnecessary assumption to make in the first place.

I think Hans-Georg might have been too flippant when considering the profile-curation elements of PewDiePie's video. After all, the professor can be entirely up-front and even cynical about his own profile-curation through the videos on this channel. But I'd agree the comment was nevertheless *very* off-color for the subject matter of the video since it didn't go much into profilicity, and Hans-Georg never really qualifies the statement so it just sits there feeling off. Possibly its own reference to the possible disgust of the eternal return, which is itself a way to provoke thought about the idea and apply it to the media from which the idea was given, a way to have remind the viewer no media is without its critique? I'm just spitballing at that point though LMAO

I don't believe the comment was off-handed. At the least, it's a joke, or moreover, probably has covert motivations not elaborated in the video. I wouldn't be one to guess what the motivation was, but Im sure that prof would put some premeditation into the comment.

I smell bitterness/resentment towards successful relationships.

@@alaron5698 could be that, but it's probably extreme cynicism. Nevertheless in was off handed and unnecessary.

The link between Nietzsche and Buddhism is Nishitani

"100 times better than Christianity"

Please!!

+1 Leibniz

I love looking at people's bookshelves

I used to feel that way too, but I feel my viewpoint has evolved since, as I know find nihilism as a philosophy effectively impossible. Essentially here's a counter: If nothing matters in life, then would you truly be fine with dying tomorrow, as opposed to dying in 10 years. I'm (hopefully) assuming your answer is no, as - like you said - you still enjoy having fun and whatnot. In this sense, your drive to "have fun" or simply live is a meaning to life. I think it's a common misunderstanding to assume that a meaning to life has to be profoundly universal. The little things you do (such as eat a good meal, talk to friends, etc) that may make you happy and push you to keep living are you purpose/meaning! (Richard Taylor has a great piece on this) The philosophical framework that you're operating under is actually moreso Absurdism, which was put forward by Albert Camus. I'd highly recommend for you to read into him cause I really feel like your view of life is akin to his own :)

Came here to say this, lol. Philosophers can't help themselves with the pwns either.

Well KANT doesn't think so.

Thank you. I had to laugh

Why don't you read his books? They're pretty good actually

His asian student films and edits these videos, so don't be too strict.

@@hape3862 I will not. The production makes the videos a joy to watch!

Book clubs for pseudo alpha males

And also somewhere of a deconstruction.

yeah, I didn't know much philosophy when I listened to him, but when he did an episode on Marx, which I actually knowa fair bit about he butchered it so hard I considered stopping listening to him

Nah some of the episode are pretty good and the guy himself said that his interpretation are well supported and researched so calling it dubious is basically saying you just don't agree with the interpretation. Nothing else

Don't forget The Talos Principle, Virtue's Last Reward and Disco Elysium

Existentialism sucks.

@@benjaminbeltran7004 sure yet, it can make a good video game…

Lol the ending 🤣👌

EXACTLY!

@@renetorres2560 First time seeing this guy, didnt really sound like he was being sarcastic or making a joke but maybe he was.

Agreed. Having watched a bit of Pewdiepie, I have every reason to believe that he was being completely genuine. There is nothing unbelievable in the notion that a moment of his wedding, when he got married to the woman he loves and was surrounded by friends and family, was a moment of true happiness and meaning for him, and one that he would gladly relive in a cycle of eternal recurrence. That was the entire point of the comment. I suppose it could have been an off-color joke on the professors part, but that sure wasn't easy to catch if that was the case.

I think it has at least to some extent to play into Moeller's understanding of profiles and their curation, and the way videos are shaped towards the general peer. It makes sense to maybe suggest it, but suggesting it without qualification is off-color. I could see Moeller looking back and perhaps agreeing that slipping the remark in was a bit outside relevancy.

Profilicity is always connected to his content somehow since it's his most common point of focus. Don't get offended over a 31 year old man making meme videos for 13 year olds.

@@josuepena8284 Profilicity isn't a license to read minds. Ironically, you also reduce my observation to being "offended." As if PewDiePie doesn't deserve charity.

@@bradspitt3896 I didn't reduce your comment to anything, I directly responded to what you're talking about. What do you even mean by "profilicity isn't a license to read minds"??? Procilicity is about the building of a profile, a publicly available one, no need to read minds. And inference is the farthest we can go when it comes to intentions, that's just how brains work. You don't even know what you're whining about lmao

@@josuepena8284 Ok, then he didn't do that. There were no grounds for the "for the female audience" comment. Ironically, you don't know what you're talking about, you just predetermine that I don't know what I'm talking about lol.

Probably already sponsored by IKEA for posing in front of the "HEJNE" bookshelf, i can see through these subliminal tricks! lol

Why does this always happen!!!! 😭 Here it started with the tro and fro with Then&Now.

I see you commenting on here a lot and support your reccomendation of Batchelor's 'Buddhism without Beliefs', so figure there's enough in common for me to ask: how did you begin reading Bataille? Interested to get your opinion on readings or ideas from him to start from

@@JMoore-vo7ii The first book of his I ever read was The Accursed Share. I'm no expert, but I don't think that would be the most ideal place to begin (unless you're a big fan of Marx and Post-marxists in general). Bataille was prolific in both philosophy and fiction, which one are you more interested in? Story of the Eye is probably his most famous work of fiction, but when it comes to philosophy and essays it can be harder to say where to start.

I tried reading Bataille's "On Nietzsche", but I found it unreadable. Attempting to read Bataille reminded me of Nietzsche's passage: "Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound to the crowd strive for obscurity" Now, it may be that Bataille IS profound, but when SO little effort appears to me made to be comprehensible, I just cannot bring myself to continue reading.

@@alaron5698 Which translator did you read?

@@hazardousjazzgasm129 Bruce Boone.

Source on JP misunderstanding Nietzsche?

@@mouwersor Don't have one on Nietzsche, but here's one for Jung in case you're interested kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ZrBoh6-DurXLeqM.html

@@michaelwu7678 My biggest problem with Peterson on Nietzsche is when it comes to the Last Man. The terminology of the last man was used by Nietzsche to apply to those who, like Schopenhauer, presuppose the nature of humanity and its limits and resign to a complacent, associated conservative nihilism out of a fear of change and the associated risks or dangers. The last man already knows what is "good and evil", and shuns all radical, transgressive thought or challenges to the norm and common sense. That mentality is what you might easily call the opiate of the last man, echoing Marx. It is nothing short of ironic that Peterson embodies and defends precisely the last man mentality in his books, taking the position of one afraid of change and dogmatically attached to his own Bourgeoise lifestyle. He completely misses the entire point of Nietzsche’s critique of Schopenhauer, while poorly attempting to use Nietzsche’s own language in a way opposite to its intended meaning. As a consequence, he only outs his own belied last man mentality and ressentiment towards the dangers of radical thought and the pursuit of progress. Of course progress is dangerous. That is still no rational reason to denounce it out of cowardice, which, as BOTH Nietzsche and Schopenhauer understood, is the fuel of most "morality".

@@hazardousjazzgasm129 That was very well-put, and I wholeheartedly agree. Peterson’s interpretations of Nietzsche are incredibly ironic. I would find it funny were it not for the millions of people being misled by him. His reduction of Nietzsche’s philosophical use of “ressentiment” to the pop psychology notion of “resentment” is something especially egregious also. It’s ironic how he sees himself as a sort of Zarathustra-like figure who is life-affirming and combatting the nihilistic chaos of “postmodern-neomarxism.” He actually thinks he is there to save “the last men” by preaching personal responsibility and self-help. He also thinks he is here to fight against “ideology” and even sees himself as being above it, when in fact he is one of the most ideologically-possessed people in public media. It’s all very poetic in the worst way.

JP is a good self help aggregator and a terrible philosopher with a boomer agenda