Amateur wannabe philosopher here. Really diggin’ the first part of what you said, but I don’t think you can call a self-avowed Naturalistic philosopher a Postmodernist. It’d be a bit like calling a Catholic Saint a Muslim.

Deleuze's nomads are more complex in my view. Classifying them as rousseauesque is kinda of a disservice, though I'm not denying the critique of power present in Deleuze and Guattari's philosophy either in Anti-Oedipus or A Thousand Plateaus. Since Deleuze's philosophy is built around the notion of multiplicity, paralleling nietzschean forces (which are multiple), I find it unlikely that he would like to do away with power altogether. In Nietzsche & Philosophy he sides with the critique of reactive forces. But it would also be somewhat of a mischaracterization of Nietzsche to think that there is no critique of power present in his philosophy, especially as it is practiced today, which is what the critique of ressentiment entails. Also, the critique of colonization is not immediately a critique of power per se, as much as it is a critique of who's exercising that power. It's not as if Nietzsche does not lament the spread of christianity which is connected to european colonization, the spread of liberal and modern ideals, of whom Nietzsche is also a critic. The lament of the fall of Muslims, Incas, or the Aztecs, all of whom Nietzsche admires or considers as having superior health and view of life. I propose doing away entirely with the term 'postmodern', at least when attempting to classify a certain philosopher or thinker. It's more of a fearmongering word for gullible and resentful souls than anything.

@@s.lazarus Nietzsche's "critique of reactive forces" is precisely his complaint with Rousseau's philosophy. How far one can go matching up Nietzsche with Deleuze and Guattari is limited by Nietzsche's arborist genealogy contra their rhizomic nomadism. If I understand Nietzsche he is saying the best of us should lead the rest of us. He ties this to an evolutionary theory that prizes the individual as the source of change/mutation. This is why he promotes the notion of self-overcoming: an ideal lost on most post-moderns European and American.

​@@johnr6087"naturalism" is always postmodern, because the very distinction of dividing man from Nature©™ can only happen as a reaction to high civilization.

Spot on

human beings lived for 2m years in this “eden” and every civilization we have tried has failed lol

LMAO, Eden is a garden. A garden is nature 🤔

He specifically denies this is desirable or possible.

He's literally me

Kant 🤣🤣🤣

Sarcasm 🙄😂

@@ArtistinDeadlight777 Rousseau argued in his Discourse on Inequality that humans are much different from their original state, or the state of nature, comparing modern man to an eroded statue of Glaucus. He thought that people like Hobbes were applying values of contemporary societies to the past, to the state of nature. He recognized that humans were products of history. Yet, he didn't follow completely through with these concepts, as Nietzsche notes in Beyond Good and Evil. Nietzsche argues that even Rousseau is falling victim to what Rousseau blamed Hobbes for, and he in turn comes up with perspectivalism. Additionally, Nietzsche applied the historicism of Rousseau to a greater extent, creating a hyper relativist perspective based upon everything being a product of history. Rousseau didn't recognize the full extent of this in his writings, perhaps out of a fear of the consequences. Nietzsche calls out Machiavelli for a very similar reason (which I may have the two confused, come to think of it)

@@ArtistinDeadlight777 I don't see what any of that has to do with what I said. I was talking about historicism, nothing to do with morals, metaphysics, individualism, etc.

@@ArtistinDeadlight777 again, that has nothing at all to do with that I said. You're just reiterating what essentialsalts said in the video

@@ArtistinDeadlight777 I literally explained what I meant in my first reply. Historicism, that's it, no more, no less. Idk where on earth you're getting all this nonsense from

@@ArtistinDeadlight777 you obviously didn't look into it more than a surface level skim. Did you see how each one of them used it? And notice how all of them come after Rousseau? Comparing Rousseau and Locke is asinine. The only thing they have in common are concepts of the social contract and tabula rasa, but only by name, not by what they actually represent. Don't try and act high and mighty when you lack reading comprehension skills

I think "despised" is the wrong word. But they are two of his most archetypal enemies. I think Rousseau beats Plato for more "despicable", even though Plato is sort of the root of the entire problem.

Listen to them on your own time, if you would do that, please.

I nearly got kicked out of work for that exact reason 😆

@@carlyellison8498 Boomer alert! LUL work is their own time, it's just time they're getting paid for. You don't know what they do, or how much downtime they have.

love Rousseau

@@AnthropogenicInversion Yer probly a Commie, or Socialist

@@LordEriolTolkien BASED ROUSSEAU

@@AnthropogenicInversion And yet he was wrong, which is why we are in this mess. Good job

@@LordEriolTolkien Ameriattempt at philosophy. He probably remembers the name from somewhere, but there is no way that Rousseau is based or reconciliable with Nietzsche. They were both idealists, but Nietzsche idealized Greek spirituality, not a dangerous distortion of the wild man. Rousseau has nothing to do with Nietzsche. Look at these upvotes, ew

If you think your children are your property you are a terrible parent.

@Grape Nut I treat my property with the utmost care Unlike you who allow your child to engage in pedophilia and incest

@@grapenut6094 I think their brains are not fully developed until 16-ish and that humans are a product of their influences and that nature alone will raise someone who can't function in society, and that societies conquer people like Rousseau.

Even further than that. He is born deeply entwined in a culture and biology which predates his birth and will survive his death

​@@grapenut6094they aren't property, but they absolutely are subject to your parental authority.

"an over ambitious individual who somehow hacked the natural order" You didn't abolish or stopped the 'hacker', he would simply go to another city, live, reproduce, accumulate... what is about this "Natural Order" of yours that is so easly corrupted?. Nature IS the natural order, you simply find a way to live with the hacker, he will get their own niche. you are not talking about natural order, you are talking about what you think is easily manageable. Your utopia isn't what is happening, that's why it get hacked.

Alternatively, look at the origins of the Sicilian Mafia. Something observable in the real world. Warriors are not workers, and they're not equal in a case like this, and it's not even about *wanting* to join the state, really.

@@zerotwo7319 I can totally answer my original questions but it just takes a wall of text. I never said it was a utopia. From my own learning my intuition tell me there was a wisdom maintained by elders in many traditional societies that was a firewall against falling into a “sorcerer’s apprentice” situation. I’m pretty new to getting a thorough grasp of this area of ancient history according to the accounts we have. The video of Keegan’s that recently edified me was discussing this practice of “banishing” an individual who “hacked” the “natural order”… this is my own sloppy, fast and loose phraseology/paraphrasing, I admit. I understand he would be exiled and I understand he would find another city to live and find a niche, as you said… I need to do more in-depth studies of ancient peoples so I can provide actual examples. From what I understand is that most traditional societies were very weary of change (the sorcerers apprentice metaphor). I’m actually fairly well versed with Marshall McLuhan and I’m lead to deeply consider it was the creep of writing via a phonetic lens of engaging language that sped things up in the ancient world. This resulted in Plato and Aristotle and how we practice science (the quantifying, classifying and categorizing of data all organized in standardized, regular forms on paper-it wasn’t until Gutenberg that this regularity of letterforms and formatting was intensely realized). We find ourselves ensconced in a nihilistic, left-brained, linear, atomistic world. McLuhan asserted that we don’t even get logic without the phonetic alphabet. He also thought the advent of the electric circuit and instant global communication would dissolve this linear, left-brain world. But we are still dealing with its influence over us for over 2 millennia. I reckon the Hellenistic world fell into nihilism because of the introduction and development of the phonetic alphabet. I think Nietzsche would agree that technology as we consider it in the West is inherently nihilistic if we think of the essence of technology not just a bundle of machines, but an artificial, systematic rationalization teleologically oriented toward maximizing efficiency, productivity, and above all, predictability- this would be Jacques Ellul’s take on what technology is, anyway. This would be Ahriman according to Rudolf Steiner. I’ve said the phonetic alphabet has no point, aside from its pointedness. I have a hard time being dissuaded from the idea that technology shapes the human being more than we shape it. Any technology creates an environment. The speed up given by the phonetic alphabet has caused such immense and frequent jumps in technology that each leap is an upheaval of the previous world. It has gotten to the point in the modern age that parents cannot fully relate to children because they grew up in very different technological environments. Not to mention grandparents. I find myself at 30 finding it difficult relate to my nephews in their teens. This isn’t natural. For most of human history children grew up in the same world as their grandparents… I could go on but I’ll just stop. There needs to be deeper discussion on the ways technology shapes human psychic and social organization. But this probably won’t happen. All true revolutions are technological, everything else is propaganda.

​@@christiansather8438 Ok man, there is no need for apologies or examples, I was just inverting your mode of thinking. Instead of foucusing on the attacker, foucus on what you can do about it. I like information security so that was my 'pitch' to you. When some server get a security breach in a system, by a 'hacker' this only happens because when humans build such structures, such systems (such as speech, writing, computers) they have severe limitations. They are not like natural system wich can adapt or create new natural niches for the attacker. Wich might explain why 'ancient peoples' didn't allow change, humans might not be able to handle such complexity? Or we didn't have tools? The eletronic circuit is just our logic into paper. Our logic is given by the rationalization of our motor neurons. Computers are a pice of our linearity into a stone (silicon). McLuhan might be wrong, until very recently. New computer architectures are being thought with non-linearity, because these new chips will copy the neurons. (Forward-Forward Algorithm by Geoffrey Hinton) You can search the papers and hear him talk. Heidegger already have this insights about technology you can read about his opinions. Look instead of thinking this way, I suggest you think in terms of protocols. Protocols are axiomatic and modular ways of solving problems. Language is a protocol. Or as Lidvig wittgestein would say 'A game' (Language game). The internet is a protocol. Or as the left likes to say, it is 'a social construct'. Maybe our society is not that linear, but the protocols we established might not have enough room to catch exceptions? Maybe we just are agreeing too much with the protocols some other created, and forgetting to put ourselves and our desires in the equation? Maybe we need a simpler protocol? Still many questions remain. - On the topic of complexity, just recently (1961) we formalized chaos teory. For my brain this are the puzzle pieces we and maybe the ancient people were lacking. We didn't have precision nor the language to understand these kind of complexity. But we agree, our world is just too linear. too 'calculable' But I think we will grow in accepting more complexity, making stories that account for that complexity. Not because it is easy, but to survive in such a complex world. If you find or re-discover more 'puzzle pieces' with the ancients, don't forget to write about and live like them. Or maybe try to write in a way to avoid transmission errors? Sorry about the misunderstanding. were I live people are always seeking utopia and I judged you. I was wrong.

@@zerotwo7319 I’ve recently been absorbing the ideas Jacques Ellul, Julius Evola and Ted Kaczynski who all took very critical views on technology so my thinking is becoming more and more flavored by them. I don’t think there are “solutions.” The notion of progress is merely propaganda for technology to sharpen its blade. We’ve gone so far astray that any “solution” is merely another facet of the machine further elaborating itself. Kazcynsky would call “solutions” surrogate activities. The only thing approximating a solution would be wiping the slate clean. I feel the mythos provided by movie The Matrix still holds up as the best metaphor for the situation we deal with. I hear you loud and clear (somewhat). I will do what I can to look into what you’ve suggested and alluded to. It seems like you went to school for computer science and I’m sad to say I wasn’t brought up in an environment conducive to learning such things. I’m cursed with being a big picture guy and have been in the habit of liking things vague. I see it’s advantages and pitfalls now. I meditate deeply on the nature/quality of things but that is regrettably subjective. I’ve always just been so interested in getting deep sense of the fuel that drives people’s behavior and decisions-the micro and the macro. I’ve always liked image and metaphor, naturally. I took some web design classes in college but it’s kindergarten stuff… To be blunt, or to paint an image, I feel like we have fallen under the influence of a demon. For a couple hundred years we’ve basically been elaborating on the puzzles Newton and Darwin laid out for us. They are the demi gods of our world. (Maybe Nietzsche is the dark horse). We have so many baked in assumptions about what it is we are to do with our lives. It’s not controversial today to say we live in an indifferent universe that sprang from nothing, consciousness is some illusory epiphenomenon of brain function resulting from blind evolutionary processes that fell into place randomly due to whizzing through a vacuum, and eventually we get the heat death of the universe and it’s all gone…or something like that. And you’re just distracting yourself from crushing existential dread with cozy fairy tails if you think otherwise. I find this to be the height of absurdity and it’s abusive to peddle this cosmology to children, but that’s basically what I grew up hearing. I could not see a point in anything given what science programs were telling me. Given our total lack of a nourishing cosmology to orient us we are left to think of life as mechanical and the human being as ‘lumbering robots’ to use Dawkins phrase. Neitszche might agree with me that we have wandered into a culdesac due to toying with abstractions wrought by engaging with a mode of language that itself nihilistic or to use McLuhans phrase, “figure without ground.” Turning the innate biological capacity of speech into externalized meaningless bits that we symbolize as letters in a system we call the alphabet is a totally far-out and abstract thing to do. We code for machines (what to do with the 0s and 1s) using languages derived from the phonetic alphabet, obviously. The phonetic alphabet removed figure from ground-it created formal logic as we know it. It created a cold, rigid continuum that we unwittingly use as a metaphor for doing science and organizing machine/technology. It has no point aside from its pointedness. We’ve lost the resonance with nature due to trading the ear (resonance metaphor) for the eye (fixed Euclidean space metaphor). Many artists and intuitives do pierce the veil all the time. Tesla said everything is energy, frequency and vibration. The visual sense is the only sense that is total. It’s a continuum. Every other sense is very wiggly, resonant, ephemeral, intervalic. Human metaphors in traditional societies arise from these resonant facilities. This trick of removing figure from ground has given western man the peculiar power of thinking he can rise above nature and do with it what he pleases. It gives us an arial perspective. The ‘phonetic alphabet-conditioned-man’ takes the power of his alphabet and feels it is his duty to translate every mode of speech into its mode-to follow its rules of regularity. It colonizes rabidly and instills values. Linearity (beginning, middle, end), repeatability (the first mass produced commodity were letterforms), etc. I think this mode of language is what you could call a “protocol.” Oral languages are interwoven in the fabric of the culture’s reality so totally that every utterance is regarded as a spirit or being that resonates with the total field awareness of its user. (Isn’t this why Navajo was used to send messages in WWII because it couldn’t be hacked?) This sounds so silly to our highly abstract, materialist mindset in this crazy world where I can sit silently and beep and boop symbols with my thumbs to you on a little gadget. We are the sorcerer’s apprentice. Humpty Dumpty had his great fall. I disagree with you that we have yet to simply craft a story to compensate for the looming complexity. It would have to serve the unceasing progress of the technical world. We are so removed from a holistic resonance that no story, model or metaphor will quell our bewildered souls. All we can do is be replaceable units or cogs flitting from dopamine hit to dopamine hit in this artifice we are ensconced in. We fear the world will end, but it ended long ago, baby! We are all on the reservation now. I don’t agree with Nietzsche on everything but he did did say reason brings relief. I can’t help but take a hard look at the horror show we got here. I distance myself from it as much as I can but I know I’m just whistling Dixie. It’s funny we have such faith that computers will be a solution… it may be the only option we have. I don’t believe in the ghost in the machine notion… so what are the solutions? There is the metaphor about everything looking like a nail if all you have is a hammer… There is Nick Land and the idea of accelerationism. We just gotta see this process through and the quicker the better! because it’s the only thing really teleologically orienting us anymore-apropos my Ellulian take on technology-an artificial, systematic rationalization teleologically oriented toward maximizing efficiency, productivity, and predictability. I know this is a Nietzsche podcast and he is totally dismissive of the otherworldly/metaphysical ponderings. But in traditional and oral cultures there is a felt sense of the beyond and how to live a life that allows one to transition correctly, or I could say honorably. I really feel like phonetic writing was the beginning of materialism, atomism, reductionism, mechanization, etc that seems to be nearing totality. I feel like much of our tech are just toys… cars, planes, skyscrapers, rockets, computers, smart phones, nukes etc just dazzle us, mostly. A lot of it is just sexy and or a status symbol. Or in other cases the tech is used to impress upon us the brutal power of raw technique, a sense of awe-this then leaves us feeling we must be subservient to these new Gods of plastic, steel, concrete and silicon. I cast my net widely when educating myself but I still feel seriously under researched and most of what I say here I will probably cringe at when I look back on it down the line. Spiritualists/occultists/alchemists would say there is much more going on than what our pedantic Newtonian/Darwinian culture accounts for. McLuhan was fairly vague with his ideas but at the same time they are so powerful. I feel he definitely discerned patterns in how humans take on the values unwittingly of the technology they use. Ellul, Evola and Kaczynski (who didn’t elaborate on much) also give one a sense of the medium (the totalitarian religion of abstracted, rationalized, systematized technique) we operate within unwittingly. It’s almost like technologies have a life or agenda of their own and humans can become merely the sex organs or whetstone. McLuhan did say we are the sex organs of the machine world…

Wrong channel bro 😂

Who is Jung?

​@@joeybeann Carl G. Jung

@@DaemonZola106 never heard of him.

You’re using Jung’s observations to discredit Rousseau? Lmao

@Eli A Jung who?

it is :) I love Nature!

@@shamusson the jaws of a shark snapping at your midrif is also nature, as is the botulism bacillus 😬

@@martinrea8548 i love sharks 🥰

@@martinrea8548 botulism bacillus 🔥🔥🔥

@@shamusson 😱

Meh

Very naive man