His symptoms and longevity after his breakdown don't seem to point to syphilis I'm pretty sure.

@@jonhoppyeah that was fake, it was an umbrella standard diagnosis given to everyone

Thanks so much!

Glad you enjoyed it :)

I agree completely. It's almost a cliche, but I've found real, genuine love that strikes the heart is more powerful than the most formidable of intellectual arguments

@@seanberube An individual who holds love without logic will eventually commit a hateful action in the name of love.

​@@seanberube Coming back to this, I found someone that made me reconnect with my heart, and it was the key that made my brain blossom.

@@Jukestar that’s beautiful! I’m happy to hear :)

@@seanberube Thank you!

Glad you found it helpful :)

I still believe in Will to Power, because Nietzsche outlines it as the only clear alternative to an untruthful submission to the Good. Nietzsche was right so they shunned him and let him eat himself up

undoubtedly his physiology played a crucial role too, though I consider his overall downfall to be multifaceted with his philosophy contributing as well

Most useless comment on here

@@dandavis4306 The guy is right. This is a not a good reading of Nietzsche. For those that don't see that, bring awareness to it is quite helpful.

Nice cope.

I would be curious about where your feelings on the origins of morality. It seems you're suggesting it's socially constructed? If so I would be curious as to what end society created their morals, and how you'd explain certain values that transcend across culture, time and place??

@@seanberube I dont have a very well developed idea about that, but this is what I got: I think certain morals are socially constructed. Usually ones linked to specific cultures or religious groups. Social norms (e.g. ancient Chinese belief that you shouldn't cut your hair because it links you to your family) or mores (e.g. hospitality towards travelers, strangers and foreigners in many African, Middle Eastern and Central Asian cultures) would certainly be socially constructed. I think others are sort of "evolved." Empathy has a biological, or at the very least physiological component. A social species that doesn't have some intrinsic motivation to not kill or steal from each other every time they wanted something wouldn't last very long. Not to say there aren't certain members of a species (e.g. psychopaths) who seem to lack these characteristics, but in my mind this would be comparable to a birth defect or genetic disease. However tribalism is a part of that too, and within certain societies, killing other "tribes" is not considered immoral and is even actively encouraged. It's like empathy for your tribe at the expense of outsiders, and certain "morals" are developed in order to emphasize the difference between two tribes. Oftentimes these morals can be quite arbitrary and at other times they serve some specific purpose, but these would be socially constructed. And none of the physiological limitations are hard limits either, so they can be overcome. For example, an otherwise moral starving man might kill his former ally in order to survive. Someone who can overcome this limitation would have an individual advantage over those who can't, as long as this person has the power or influence to overcome the objections to their behavior. But it doesn't mean they are inherently "more able," "more intelligent" or "more fit," it just means that they can cut corners when they need to which provides a large advantage. In my mind, it would be like someone who cheated in a race by taking a head-start or hamstringing their opponents then claiming that they are the fastest runner. Edit: My original comment was less about the social construction of morality, but about individuals claiming individual "greatness" after relying on the collective achievement of others their whole lives. Then when they have a chance, they opportunistically attempt to break away from the pack and believe they did it on their own. In this discussion, I don't think it is necessary to talk about objective morality, just achievement. Whether that morality comes from the society itself (I don't think the most important bits do, but some parts unquestionably do) or from biological necessity or from a deity is not relevant to that argument (I suspect I'm mostly likely to wrong about that, that's usually my blind-spot, i.e. sometimes I think of things as being irrelevant to certain arguments when they are very relevant.) I added in the bit about the fallacy of "good and evil" men, but that does muddle the water a bit. To clarify, I don't believe there are "good or evil" men, only "good or evil" actions (e.g. a man can be "good" a hundred times and then choose to be evil. We see this with a lot of rulers in history who were generally benevolent, but then they began to believe that benevolence was an intrinsic part of their character and any action they took to serve themselves also served benevolence.)

@@TaxidermiedMessiah Nice ad hominem.

@@Dnichols619 You know who loves “working together”? Parasites.

No one cares

I would consider that a good thing lol

@@seanberube no one cares

You just pull that out of your ass. If you understood Nietzsche you would know that all of us eventually failing and dying is not only part of his philosophy but part of reality.

@@kentjensen4504 you don't need Nietzsche for that brother, only eyes. And, I wouldn't underestimate... what I can pull out of my ass. You don't know what I've digested.

My thoughts exactly. It's not always fair to judge a philosopher by the life they lived, but if I find that a philosopher either didn't live their philosophy (like Hume), or did live their philosophy but was a terrible person (like Sartre), then I consider that a great argument for the silliness of what they argue

@@seanberube So you admit you can’t actually assess the ideas themselves.

@@kentjensen4504 That's quite an interesting conclusion to arrive at my friend!

This is a very fair critique of my video, and I suppose I'll have to explain this shortcoming to Jesus one day🤦‍♂

Superman is a terrible translation. There is no single word in English for it & the closest we can get is over & beyond.

Given that he also wrote, "The Antichrist," I'd say it's only natural he and Christians will continuously be at odds :)

thanks for the recommendation my friend :)

@@seanberubeHope you do find the time to check the series out. I find pretty much all discourse around Nietzsche frustrating, as people don´t really submit to the exercise of changing their outlook if it proves inferior to another, antagonistic one. I try to force people to confront Nietzsche and realize just how powerful, just how much of a new, superior world can be reached thru his works.

I think he's an unforgettable writer! But I was raised with religious dogma and bought into it for the better part of my life. His mytho poetic work Thus Spoke Zarathustra felt like a dream I'd had before. His tight rope walker "scene" was a recurring dream I'd have as a child! It represents the straight and narrow path to heaven. I think Nietzche's philosophical legacy can be seen as an experiment in defying one's inherent nature. His written philosophy was a challenge to himself. He couldn't overcome the epigenetically instilled values within his unconscious mind. As much as I dislike Nietzche as a person, I also respect and admire his spirit. I personally think he went insane from the weight of conscience knowing the effects his ideas would have on people. He couldn't kill good and evil as values within himself. And he had many years to do it! I personally see a really fascinating study in human nature, both in his life and work.

@@jono3505 It's funny how polarizing even responses to Nietzsche are! I'm with you in that I find him utterly fascinating and a great warning, though I also wouldn't recommend him to most of my loved ones because of how dangerous I think he can be. Even as one who thoroughly disagrees with him, I can't deny that he was a genius, and as you said, Zarathustra was remarkably haunting.