Gratitude is das father of all virtues: wisdom courage justice and compassion

I'm not sure whether English is your first language or not, but "draught" is pronounced like "draft"

How about why nietzsche was an idiot.

Socrates is remembered because there are more week people then there are strong there are more vengeful cowards then there are heroes. And the mob decided to adopt in immortalize him

Who are Socrates’s greatest contemporary followers? Are lawyers and politicians. The greatest liars and cowards of all the time

"Nice argument Nietzsche, why don't you back that up with a source?" ~ Socrates (probably)

@@JamesTaylor-on9nz “My source is that I made it the fuck up!” -Nietzsche probably

pretty sure sam hyde hit idubbbz with that one

@@callums1235 The influence of The Legendary Cracked Sentient Editing Software is spreading

The chad wrestler vs the virgin cripple

I dont think his career was very succesful. He died poor with nothing in pocket and almost 0 recognition by public.

@@migaru7362 just because he wasn’t successful doesn’t mean he didn’t try to do as I described.

@@migaru7362 I agree. The idea should be analyzed regardless of who said it, if the idea itself seems worth analyzing. I also feel that not analyzing the person as well can leave out vital information not just about The person but the idea itself. Marx prattles on and on about exploiting the working class and what does he do to the one person his life that he actually employed? He knocked her up, abused her and threw her in the gutter. Maybe, just maybe, we shouldn’t take seriously a mans opinion on how to treat the working class when he treats the working class he encounters that way? Ideas should be analyzed independently but the person shouldn’t be completely ignored either.

I’m not a Nietzsche fanboy myself( I like Plato and Aristotle wayyy more) but Nietzsche doesn’t argue really. He criticizes Plato on something with a cheeky response about Plato’s character, doesn’t offer a solution to the mentioned criticism. He claims that Plato among other create nihilism and the solution to nihilism is the will to power. You might call this an argument but it’s not formal,systematic, or comprehensive and in certain case not even prescriptive(are you really doing what you want if Nietzsche told you so?)

He didn't make a career out of arguing he made a career out of philology and eviscerating bad philosophy.

Underrated comment. I have always felt the same way.

can you give 1 example

@@visceraeyes525 "God is dead !"

Preposterous* smart guy

Speaking of Socrates, Diogenes trolling him with the plucked chicken look it's a human was epic.

🤣🤣🤣

Classic

@@kellyoradio5029 a fellow ubermensch of high tastes, I see

@@Jabranalibabry Clever

Nietzschit is an annoying mosquito. Socrates was a lion.

I think its the opposite, Socraties was so good at arguing that people would rather give up striving to live a life that they were convinced was now foolish. They were happy but stupid, Socatise made them ponder just how stupid they where. Ignorance is bliss i guess.

socrates made a career out of arguing. the substance of life shouldn't be in argument. you completely vitiate the existential element. socrates is the pure intellectual who hobbles out of his college rooms looking like skeletor because he's dissociated himself from embodied life and reduced himself to a walking corpse. for all of his inquiries into the meaning of life he's destroyed all of the meaning in life.

except socrates didnt argue, he was simply trying to find answers to questions with the help of other people that they could both happily agree on. problem is that everyone he talked with ended up going in circles without finding any concrete answer or solution that they could both agree on. hence why socrates always claimed that he knew nothing, while the other people who he talked with could not prove their beliefs yet they believed in them and followed them, they could not give a reason why

@@visceraeyes525 if you know nothing you can do nothing because you have no premises from which to operate. that's a recipe for destruction. the athenians knew this and had to put a stop to it. socrates' arguments are made in bad faith. if you've ever argued with someone like socrates you realize quickly what they're doing although you can never get them off of it. socrates was a kvnt. they should have just looked at him and said, "if you're a know nothing then why am i talking to you? why would i waste my time talking to someone who knows nothing?" but, sadly, even this is too much to say to someone as disingenuous as socrates. you simply can't engage them because that's the initial hook of their entire game. he should have just been ignored.

@@conantheseptuagenarian3824 sure but he tried to make people question their beliefs and to be introspective instead of just accepting things that they are taught or expected to believe in while pushing those same beliefs on everyone else to the point that it becomes the norm, yet no one he talked with could explain the reasoning behind their beliefs. obviously the government was afraid of free thinking and punished him with death or exile. a bit ridiculous to punish someone like that for that reason but it goes to show how threatened the government was by free thought

Because my name is N I E T Z S C H E And I'll end any motherfucker like my name in a spelling B!!!

"Don't make Nietzche come over there and put a knee up in your chi!" - Also Nietzsche

@@mainstreetsaint36 "Cause I am N-I-E-T-Z-S-C-H-E and I'll end any motherfcker like my name in a spelling bee." - Also Nietzsche.

Typical prol method of drawing attention to oneself by badmouthing a long dead Man ..he owed his successxin large part to Socrates just as Plato does.

well to be fair "The anti-christ" doesnt attack jesus, it just states that his message was distorted later on by his disciples ( mainly paul and peter) giving focus only to his death and the whole myth of ressurection, salvation and the after-life, instead of his life and teachings and instead of uniting the kingdom of god with THIS life and within everyone, which was what Jesus, according to Nietzsche, was preaching about. If anything it is anti-church/christianity...it's Paul that really sticks out as the "antichrist" figure

Didbn't he claim to BE the antichrist in that book?

FYI Black and white thinking is a symptom of borderline personality disorder, not bipolar disorder. It's a common mistake, behavior popularly termed "bipolar" is usually actually indicative of borderline personality disorder.

@@oriraykai3610 yes he does that often, being the ugly beast people are afraid of seeing.

This

that genuinely has to be the worst take of both parties

@@fionnghallselma7193 If you have a better take, consider adding to the discussion

@@auschtits3023 nah

Nietzsche called Schopenhauer his teacher and advisor. He was a staunch opponent of Hegel, though.

@@quailinyourpocket3329 even Hegel's mother was. Hegel was cringe worthy, to use my teenage son's vocab

exactly. sherlock holmes solves the case.

If we acted like reason was worthless the world would be a mess, but I agree.

Yes, Nietzsche is fascinating. Sickly, powerless intellectual who seemed to despise sickly, powerless intellectuals

Perfection

@@dashphonemail looks like projection then

Not even close. Read a book Jack.

@@JS-dt1tn bruh literally all I did for my poli sci degree was read books from guys like these, more than I ever would've wanted to

Much appreciated!

I'm not sure he has to read Nietzsche in English, he seems like a native German

Great comment!

What problems does it solve? It's just a trick to find your way to emptiness. But you could skip the questions and get there immediately.

@@strangeWaters How do you get "there" when you don't know that "there" exists? You have to ask questions so you can arrive at "there". And what problems does questioning solve? Basically EVERY problem that mankind faces. Of course you need to apply knowledge that was discovered by socratic questioning method if you actually want to solve a problem. Example: ask doctors socratic questions about causes of disease. If you do that, you will discover that they have no clue about disease processes and that they're not only useless but also harmful with the usage of chemical drugs. Then you can observe nature and ask questions and discover the cause of diseases. That's just one example of many. Claming that asking questions is a trick to "find your way to emptiness" is gaslighting. And it comes either from ignorance or hate. If you dont ask questions then probably your life is empty and you project it onto youtube comments.

@@michaelk1589 Then what if you question morality based on the premise that the one reacting has no logic? What does proving the baselessness of (a) moral accomplish when looking at the world? In the search of progress one shouldn't digress into spiting those deemed inferior, for inferiority is an illusion only those of weak logic have applied on themselves. Thus by infecting the self with inferiority, not by contact or failing of the other, but simply through the corruption of ones own logic, corrupted by the ego, forgetting that it is not ego that makes one unique nor grants any grounds for a claim to superiority. Your last 2 sentences contained a judgement that could be mirrored right back. Why would you even make such a statement? Many people think their statements say something about the subject, but in reality they firstly tell you about the speaker themselves.

@@bramboeshoe905 Well, the previous commenter claimed in the first post that one "finds way for emptiness" by asking questions and that is a useless endeavour. I say that its complete lunacy since you grow and get knowledge by exactly this - asking questions and the observing the phenomenas of the world. I therefore claim that such stance of an individual is not only making his life fruitless since he won't get into any meaningful conclusions but its also harmful since his actions will most probably bring undesired results due to lack of knowlegde. And such stance comes from either being an ignorant human or person filled with hate or fear. That is objective statement. Knowledge comes from love and will to live and curiousity. And about first part of your comment - I have no clue what you mean there. Please reiterate in simple words if you want an answer. I didnt write anything about inferiority or superiority so I cant comment. But since you said word "morality" then I shall state that there is only objective morality that bounds all creatures with higher capacity for thinking. If you are a "moral relativist" I shall not engage in further discussion since moral relativists are insane and dangerous. And its very important to discern right from wrong /good from evil in todays world. So judging immoral or harmful worldview is substantiated.

Yes, it's almost like Nietzsche's arguments don't make any sense. But then caring about good argument is for the weak. The ultimate fascist philosopher.

@Christopher Bolhuis Rather than using your Will to Power to belittle people on the internet, why not use it to provide passages in Nietzsche that prove he didn't believe that all that exists is the Will to Power and therefore that 'higher order' functions such as reason and logic aren't just in the service of the Will to Power, and it's just as valid, in fact more honest, to settle arguments using violence as opposed to reasoned debate? Nietzsche's arguments work great if you're Genghis Khan, just acting out in the world, not so much for a philosopher who at least has some requirement to reason his points out so people can understand them. But as a Nietzschean I suppose you think proving your point is a waste of time anyway, better to just troll people. He really is the philosopher of the current age.

@Christopher Bolhuis Using argument to claim that using argument is a cowardly form of overpowering others. If you don't believe in some kind Absolute, transcendental Truth, which Nietzsche clearly didn't, then yeah everything is just a jostling of different will to powers. There's no way of getting out of the idea that God is dead without plunging into nihilism, which of course he did, and no 'reevaluation of all values' is going to get you out of it. He should have stuck to reading Schopenhauer.

Ah actually there is some scientific basis to the idea that beautiful people are better people...several studies on it...not proven 100 percent but far from completley wrong

@@freefromthedark6784 Well "better" is not exactly the term to use. One might use the term if one believes in Objectivity, but is "better" really existent in an objective, scientific path? You see, whats better for one person, is the person's opponent's worse. Some people consider themselves the best people in the world, superior to any living beings, are they though? A person might think of himself as a burden, as a total looser, but that is his mere intepretation of himself.

Thank you

Those who look at Nietzsche as a rival of Socratic figure either take a partial account or misinterpret him .

@@RT-yw3sz Glad someone here has actually read him closely... So sad to see so many miss the mark.

Thats funny because Plato used Socrates as a mouthpiece for his own ideas, and Plato had a big influence on the Bible and the church founders. So, in essence, Nietzsche wanted people to use the Bible to guide their morals and resson.

@@myhatmygandhi6217 no. Definitely not. That aspect of Socrates (the moralistic) was not top of mind. Infact it was highly deconstructed.

I think as you point context matters a lot. And if you look at Nietzsche now he was just out of the middle age too. It’s not like he was omniscient of his conditions because he couldn’t even knew what would arrive 100 years later..

Socrates had centuries of Greek (and Persian!) thought to build on, and if he wanted to back millennia there were the Egyptians--he's about midway between us and the Pyramids.

NICE COMENT!

There were centuries of philosophical work before Socrates was born. Specifically scientific methodology, which is the crown jewel of Western thought. That is NOT nearly zero, you're misinformed.

@@josedanielherrera7115 In my opinion there was a high civilisation before, what we call history is the history of the abandoned survivors.

Have you read Nietzsche? His books are more like poetry, literature, there is little arguments and logic in his writing. And that's not a bad thing.

@@Ragnarok540 Why isn't that a bad thing?

@@markaguilera493 Because the vitality of life isn't in sterile science and logic but the irrational and passionate.

@@grabballz4857 What makes you think science and logic are sterile? Sterile means "that can give birth to nothing". Does it seem to you that science and logic have given birth to nothing?

@@nodruj8681 And yet, we understand his points, so that means Socrates has much to do with knowledge. Maybe he does feel superior in a way, but not necessarily arrogant. He has the confidence of the person who knows they're right and can show it through argumentation. What do you mean by a "wise man"? Sophistes were professional orators who could argue one way or another. They weren't that much concerned with truth. They too felt superior in their mastery of language and ability to manipulate people by means of clever but fallacious argumentation. So what makes you think Socrates was doing the same thing when clearly his dialogs show he is not? What is fallacious in Socrates's ways of questioning people?

Heh I see what you did there.

@@jakariashafin1695 It goes much deeper. *RorriMaesu says useaMirroR*

From what we know of him, Socrates was a war veteran. He also seemed to be a lot more popular and relevant during his life than Nietzsche was during his. From the evidence we have, it seems like Socrates was closer to Nietzsche's ideal than Nietzsche himself was. That's the biggest irony here.

Let's add to that the fact that Socrates was a buff wrestler and a war veteran... And Nietzsche was a sore loser and a cripple. Thanks to Socrates we've got latter on Aristotelian and Stoic philosophies and they weren't about weakness of a slave mentality as Nitzsche argues but about strength to restrain yourself to control animal urges. Couse to them a virtues man isn't a pathetic harmless weakling but a strong restrained pacifist. Only a Germanic barbarian could argue for a "Might makes right" dogma.

@@KZfaqTryingToBeTwiter31581 Nietzsche uses the Christians to represent slave morality and the Greeks to represent master morality in actuality. Might make's right isn't true in so far as it's used to spread meta narratives that are used as a means to more power/control over people's lives. There you have postmodern skepticism.

Failed? failed how? in not surviving? He said on his death bed that he had no problem with dying. Was he a liar then?

I mean Socrates did say he knew nothing about anything

“It feels like”?

If you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

Irrational Nietzche

Socrates brought about the stagnant circle of inquiry while Nietzsche literally made Superman

being deemed healthy by a sick society is no good measure of health. criticism towards contemporariness to enlighten a succumbing mentality (the mass), upsetting the status quo, and being deemed sick (not an upstanding cirizen) by the mainstream literary/intellectual society is hardly a good measure. he wasn't saying the masses were wrong, he was implying they might be living according to rules and an ethos which their ancestors apparently built for them, while obviously being in a homogeneous mindset to them. while one has to admit the great number of ways in which the world has culturally and technologically enriched itself through the centuries, it is also of no use to point out all the great amount of good done, just to hide the proportionally immense atrocities and sheer dehumanization that came with it. it seems obvious that cognitive dissonance is fundamental in order to understand what nietzsche cryptically implied in his poetry and literary works in general. first and foremost one has to embrace the unknowingness about his time period, about which the winners always talked so highly of, as in most cases is done by those who prosper. contemporary criticism evaluations done in hindsight are hardly a good way to evaluate a poet-philosophers work. the destructive and demystifying manner in which nietzsche, and schopenhauer before him, approached all past common and specialized 'knowledge' resulting in a radical re-evaluation of past dogmas, vices and virtues is hardly something that can be comprehended under the influence of contemporary mainstream (of any time, not just today's) ethics and morals, generally heavily guided by a prevailing mass mentality (see freud's and others work). one would need to do as zarathustra did to truly embrace and/or refuse his message and proposals about the human condition and life in an unconditioned condition (nature, without social/ethical/moral propaganda of good and evil). there is no suggestion he was inherently right, none whatsoever. he pointed out regular and recurring phenomena of this cosmos, encouraging his reader to enquire, and not to simply settle for what is "already known and established" by some compartmentalized elected hierarchy of past/present individuals. man needs to see for himself before he believes in anything. sure he was human, he had his problems, perfection was and never has been the objective of his or any other philosophical system of the past, neither was his purpose an idealistic critique towards the social hierarchy and systems used, it was more of an attempt to give another possibility for a different more autocratic/anarchic way of life with which life could be different, perhaps for the better, perhaps for worse. these are just two cents on the matter, i'm not claiming to be right or an expert on nietzsche, this is perhaps a young inexperienced man's consideration on a topic which is all too often left to those in power or as an exclusive conversation of the presbytery, i'd like for everyone to have their own, actual view, instead of THE RIGHT ONE, because the textbook says its so. onthefence.jpg

Just like Socrates hated the sophists which in turn becomes the biblical hatred of greek thought (philosophy).

Got put the "fried" in Friedrich when he said "Nietzschit ist tot."

I mean, look at his moustache

Nietzsche hated the Stoics, dude…

He was probably a made up character by Plato too, so Nietzsche got trolled by Plato. lol

Agreed. we only have second hand sources through Plato and Aristotle.

People thinks Nietzsche or any other person who does not understands / speaks / writes the ancient greek language and does not know the origin of each word and each letter(Greek alphabet is coded) can be a philosopher.. For example, did you know that when you are asking a question and when you are '' in love '' you are actually doing the same thing, because "in love" and "question" have exactly the same meaning?which is "the desire of acquiring something you don't already have" , a thing or an answer! Philosopher=Φίλος+Σοφία=Friend of Wisdom! this is the reason Eros (Cupid) referred to as Deamon or great philosopher and not as a God (Deamon is the stage between mortals and gods) because Gods are wise but Cupid constantly seeks wisdom, so he couldn't be a god.. my point is that if we, the modern Greeks cant completely understand the meaning of philosophy after years of studying, how is it possible for someone without Greek education do it? Today's philosophy has nothing to do with the ancient Greek one

Wouldn't that then apply to people who like Socrates? So by your logic everybody is wrong about Socrates and he is not worth commenting on.

@@Mierezkal Yes, everyone is wrong about Socrates, which is why I said that no one really knows who he was. That was the point.

So trump was Nietzsche then?

Pretty myopic assesment but sure

The world is all about power dynamics. Western news outlets already exploit the concept of "post-truth" and distort messages, safe example would be Iraq in which, in the end, no chemical weapons were found. The US always seeks to assert itself and wage the informational warfare. But unlike western hypocrites, Asian mentality (and post-Soviet mentality) do not reject power dynamics. Many Asians or Russians actually are very pragmatic about power. For example, many see that corruption is just a vent, a tension-release shaft which appears when laws are too oppressive or incomprehensible. Bribery often is a form of paid service. If all, we should call not for abolishment of bribery, but for transparency and open unified prices for government services. This is only one example, there are many more. Powerful countries and companies exercise their will, form "crowds" believing their self-created infouniverses.

Um, you've somewhat misunderstood Nietzsche he definitely wouldn't have supported those men you mentioned. In fact, there was a great composer during his time (I forget his name) Nietzsche originally considered him an Overman due to his accomplishments through music, but when he began supporting german nationalism, Nietzsche rescinded that claim bc he was just going along with the social trends of his particular culture and society at the time

@@TOAOM123 can you explain how? Or is arguing too Socratic? :P

Dont know if id look up to an over glorified pedophile caught up in their own hubris

This made me appreciate Nietzche more

@@Vectivuss Man you just sound so vitriolic and angry over some dude that died 2 thousand+ years ago. I guess that speaks to Socrate's ability to live rent free into everyone's head.

​@@supergobgoblin424 to me your comment is showing how annoyed you are of op's comment just because he subverted the expected perception of socrates after they saw nietzsche sneering at socrates... you cant accept there is one who subverted it , so you reaffirming your offended adoration to nietszche by replying that way

@@exmaniac1474 but the same can be say about you, the fact that someone refused the subvertion subverted the expectations you had after reading the original comment, you can't accept there is one who disagrees with the subvertion, so you reaffirmed your offended adoration to Socrates by replying that way

Or, as the Irish say, if there is no Guinness on draught, it is a drought.

You are technically correct, the best kind of correct.

Nietzsche seems to argue that all philosophy is sophistry, so he wouldn't disagree

Nice description Sir. Peace be unto you.

Wow dude, well put.

but where does virtue come from? It comes from past politicians who came from men of virtue who again came from past politicians. It is how civilizations fall and rise.

@@wahrerrosty5347 Or perhaps it comes from men of probity and virtue who step forward to become leaders, sometimes reluctantly. The common type of glad-handing politician is a different sort of creature, and one usually at a safe remove from virtue. But I acknowledge your "strong men-good times-weak men-bad times" cycle as containing some truth.

Curiously enough also similar to Thelema with the Aeon of Isis being when man worshipped the earth, the aeon of osiris being when man worshipped gods and the aeon of horus being when man worshipped man.

deep

Nowadays, the most important "evangelists" are tech company shamans spewing their effete doctrines. What would Nietzche think of this capitalist decadence the world has sunk into? If he thought Hellenistic culture was bad he would have fainted at ours today...if you can even call it a culture that is

I’m not reading that mf

Well said. Then again, you’re probably a rational type who naturally questioned the world around you since you were born. I’ve come to notice a lot of people become uncomfortable when they begin to question what they experienced. They’d rather live within the illusion of their personal life where it’s comfortable. The positive is that they usually live in bliss but the downfall is that they aren’t very reliable in critical moments

@@christianbrobst3486 Comfortability with the unknown exists within a spectrum in my opinion. Those who refuse to suspend judgement in the absence of sufficient evidence are the worst kind of people and aren’t reliable. Most people can be eventually be swayed if the subject isn’t religion.

@@dj69918 I’d have to agree and add that every ideology and way of thought that’s been labeled or defined exists as a spectrum. Do you mean people who put value into tribalism, in a sense? Basically those who take action for a side not because they share ideals but due to tribalistic nature

@@christianbrobst3486 From my experience tribalism usually doesn’t make people act against their personal beliefs, it tends to change their beliefs to fall in line with the tribe. The tribe has to be right because a wrong tribe is a dead tribe.

Read The Gay Science for a dismantling of the skeptics

Nietzsche's suggestion is that Socrates was driven by insincere motives (i.e. to manifest his own will to power in a society where he is unable to do so by conventional means) rather than just the love of philosophy, and he arrives at this through some pretty interesting psychoanalysis. Whether you are convinced or not, I think it makes for some interesting philosophy regarding people's true intentions and looking beyond surface level phenomena

Kinda ironic how Nietzsche’s whole philosophical career is based on doing the very thing he despises about Socrates (making an argument to prove your point instead of brute force).

Ur all wrong

@@Dezzreck well, as Ayn Rand’s philosophy shows ‘making a point’ doesn’t get much as her famous books shows… I think the idea of ‘hey trade offs happen’ or as Sowell says- I paraphrase ‘first stage thinking is not the end’ do a thing- what comes next after that was completed?

@Ali this helps a lot actually

How would you know since we only know what he said after Plato wrote about it, probably after he died.

@@oriraykai3610 Since our only comprehensively source is Plato, that is whom I rely on as does everyone. I said, you may recall, "It seems to me..." no one can be sure.

Socrates conditioned people to be on his side for decadence and approval. He accomplished his goal and was much more competent than nietchze who sat there bitching about it. Life is structured in a manner. You either fight. Or you escape from it. Socrates chose to fight for his ideal world no matter what it lead to. The only rational approach as for living and he got what he wanted ultimately.

@@chuhwey3632 Socrates alienated a good many Athenians and was accused of corrupting the youth. He had a following of young people who were evidently enamored of him, but whether he was guiding them to better good, or leading them astray is debatable. He was put on trial and a majority condemned him. He was given a chance to defend himself or make amends. He did neither but as it were thumbed his nose at the large jury of citizens. He accepted the death sentence as if he welcomed it. He was old, tired and had done as much as he could to correct what he perceived as the ills of society. He was arguably a crank, and a reactionary at the same time. It is a fascinating story. He should be understood within the political situation of Athens when after Athenians had suffered a humiliating defeat in the Peloponnesian War they were forced to tear down their walls and a government of 30 tyrants was installed presumably to do Sparta's bidding. This was the calamity during which Socrates began to prod people and confuse them seemingly to restore the old ways of conducting their lives and businesses, but without offering any relief from their oppressed state.

@@tonygumbrell22 literally any worldview is debatable considering the way we live life is not a organized perfect road but a individualized one based off of ones own life experience. You're projecting your own insecurities with his way of life and trying to pass it as objective outlook.

Cool, although I would argue that N mostly dedicated his whole life to finding meaning and joy in it. Either way, my main point here is that the two things might be related in a complex way, like his relation to S, as u point out.

debate is all rhetoric. truth has very little to do with it

@@leleltea8921 that’s cope

@@EepyJuni you know it's true

Good evening, my friend. I see your point, however you are not at all considering the possibility that decadence (for lack of a better term) is not a social automation, but rather a willful and systematic attack on the given society. Directed by external foes and their lackeys. This might not be the case either, yet luckily, we have lots of knowledge about late 5th century Athens to at least play with the idea. If you read Aristophanes, for example, and his take on the decadence, you will see that even contemporary Athenians realized that the decay had also poisoned the arts, the sense of historical truth, the judicial system and so on. All, while the vast wealth of the Athenian empire was being funneled abroad, through a process of currency inflation. It is true that Athens fell - never to recover - during Socrates' active years. There might be no connection here .. But there might as well be one

@@petrosmaragkos5492 sure, this is a possibility. It's also a possibility that nothing in a social level happens because of a single factor, which is my belief. I appreciate the reference, but even if Aristophanes had that reading, that is not reason to suppose that was the only cause, or even the main one - I think in every society you'll find people, including fairly instructed people, given vastly different readings on the situations and their causes, including regarding to "extraneous forces undermining the culture for their gain". It's a surprisingly current topic even. More importantly, even if we take Aristophanes on his word (which I haven't read : p), that's still not to say this could be generalized to other societies. Just to make clear, my main concern is with this generalization, which often follows this train of though, and which I think can be dangerous. When I say you could fit this sort of behavior using mostly random noise, that's my concern: when unfalsifiable things are taken as general truths, it's *very* easy to turn them into dogma. (a side note is that if we do have a lot of different "deterministic" factors involved, their interaction may still be better modeled as some sort of noise than as a single deterministic factor, mathematically speaking)

@@user-sl6gn1ss8p I see the point even more clearly, now. I find no logical flaws in your reasoning, however the assumption that there are no malevolent powers messing with the pendulum, is just as dogmatic as the opposite assumption. Of course, the danger of oversimplification is always there and a society that is conditioned to seek out enemies and scapegoats is a humanitarian time bomb. But so is a society whose academia, science, arts and politics have been hijacked to the point where its citizens lack even the instinct of self preservation (social wise). Bottom line, though I am still flirting with both ways of seeing things, I reckon that undermining a society's system of values in order to gradually lead it out of existence, is an entirely possible thing to do. And if "someone" is actually doing that, then all the noise that rises from the intermingle of social perplexity, can be viewed by them as manageable feedback. I have no idea whether this makes any sense, thank you for your time anyway. Side note, (sure you know this) every time we make the effort to "force" a model onto reality, we should expect noise. And the more we stick to the model, the more we deem "non canonical behavior" to be noise. Of course, this works both ways, just saying..

​@@petrosmaragkos5492 I agree with your points. My opinion is that there are always all sorts of pressures going on on all aspects of a society - direct and indirect pressures, intended and unintended (and partially intended), "malicious" or "well-meaning", and really a huge diversity of positions that defy this classification. At one point in time, in a given society, it might be the case that a specific social phenomenon can be better understood in the light of a specific pressure, but even then the response to that pressure depends on other factors, other pressures as well. I find it very hard to believe any "large" portion of what happens to a society can be neatly boiled down to a simple scheme like this, specially on larger time-scales. Thing is, even if I'm right in respect to this, it should still be expected (from a modelling stand-point) that we would, given time, get "graphs" of "social strength" like the ones used for illustration in the video, which means that, at this level, you can make "predictions" from the belief that, say, the main drive in social change is a malicious cabal hellbent on the decadence of our society and that this is tied to cycles of hardship -> strength -> well being -> weakness -> hardship, and eventually you'd confirm you predictions - regardless of whether you're right or not, simply because much simpler systems which don't need this belief can also make the same prediction. You're probably familiar with the concept of Ockham's razor, right? I think failure to apply it in social science is very dangerous. Just to be clear, I'd make the same argument against a similar, but inverted belief. On noise, that's a very important note : ) Noise is a powerful tool, which can definitely be abused

@@user-sl6gn1ss8p Crystal clear. I agree with you as well. Only one thing, though. I understand that you used the term "malicious cabal" as an extreme case theory in order to make your point, however I feel that I should also make something clear ; When I write about malicious intent, I refer to large scale organized interests that are detached from the concern for the well-being of their social backgrounds or for the impact of their actions on the individual. Just people like you and I, doing business as always. One does not need to resort to the idea of some all knowing, religion - like, hood - wearing (etc) mystical group to reach a simple explanation for things (I do agree that Ockham's razor is a double edged sword, though). Allow me to get tiring, now, for a bit. The thinker who has had the biggest influence on me - as far as this topic is concerned - is Thucydides. He was an Athenian philosopher, contemporary to Socrates (and Nietzsche's favorite Greek thinker), who wrote the history of the war between Athens and Sparta. He did that to showcase his theory on human behavior, since he thought that war is the only true human nature. Of course, war in Thucydides has a specific meaning. In very few words, he proposed that humans act driven by three factors : self interest, power and fear. Power being the ability to ensure one's own interest and fear being the uncertainty over the opponent's power. He then proceeded to accept certain axioms (most known : the strong will do what they can and the weak will suffer what they must) and went on to build his theory. The depth of his work is incalculable, however one thing is for sure. He managed to give a scheme by which to understand human affairs with no reference to supernatural or mystical causes, whatsoever. This gives you a tool to actually perceive human behavior as a fractal, starting from the individual, right to the whole of humanity. Strong statement, I know but bare with me. According to the theory, humans are destined (if not doomed) to willfully create pyramidal structures of power that are glued together by the perception of self interest of the individuals (people or organizations). War happens when the rising power of one such pyramid tends to enter the uncertainty radius of a dominant pyramid, inside a given field of interests. I wrote all the above also to trigger your curiosity :D I enjoyed having this conversation with you. People who can actually have a decent talk are hard to find. I wish you health and incentive to keep your search going! Thank you

Nice simile! I can't wait to be given the chance to use it 😏

Or the other way around?

Socratic traditions: created by physically active, proficient strongmen who opposed the moral idiocy of the Athenians. Post-Socratic ""traditions"": created by twig-limbed aristocrats who didn't know anything about reality, and probably couldn't even deadlift 100lbs.

@@DISTurbedwaffle918 hmm... I believe that Socratic and post-Socratic are identical. so....

@@Iknowknow112 Cringe. Socratic is actual philosophy. Post-Socratic is just anti-philosophy ideals being touted as "the new philosophy"

No not persuade others of your authority, persuade others because you don’t have the authority to tell them that this is like this and that is like that. And he doesn’t say it’s this or that only that one argues because he lacks the power to control.

If democracy is intended to prevent brute force, it does a terrible job at it

It would seem I am being recommended the same videos as you late at night (assuming you didn't seek out this video). I'm not sure whether to be thrilled or concerned. Seriously though, love your work, and totally agree.

'If an argument can defeat your power, you never had any.' Socrates' agility and wisdom in public debate did not save him from meeting his end at the hands of the Athenian elite, who he bested verbally and regularly in front of crowds of his peers. I believe that when Nietzsche refers to arguments as being the tool of the powerless, he is merely giving an observation about reality. It must be noted that in Nietzsche's view, it was the powerful that ultimately decided the morality of the day. This is not to say that he necessarily agreed with that system. It's just how things were/are. Socrates DID leave a lasting legacy in the world. However, you must apply Nietzsche's pov to the equation too; Would Socrates' legacy have been known to us if the powers that be did not wish it? Would Socrates' writings have even survived if the hellinistic world had not been such a powerhouse back in the day? Perhaps Hellas would have fallen to the Celtic and Dalmatian tribes of antiquity, causing the records to be lost. What if the European kings had adamantly resisted the enlightenment, when classical Greek thinkers inspired modern philosophy? One decision altered by the [many] powers that were, and you may not have ever heard of Socrates.

I always was under the impression his idea of being right was less logical and more based on his hated mob and the mob mentality. Then again he could be inserting cynicism into in an attempt to be ironic.

If you had power you dont need to convince with logic. You just do

Arguments are often a lot like cassation (vs appelation). Not calling out general principles, but calling out on minor discrepancies. We all are living people. We all make mistakes. But our principles form not overnight, but in several years. And often we find enough proofs to them. So one "argument won" over minor forgotten sources or accidentally twisted diagrams will not change anything. And yes, powerful people can lead others to believe anything actually emotional as "logical", such as denying nature of two sexes or anything like that.

What kind of insticts people suppress for reason? Is it the instinct to survive or it's the instinct to reproduce.

@@farzad1021 Both. But mainly the second. But not only that. Also other sorts of social instincts.

The Pre-socratic philosophers show the freedom of thought in those times, where speculation was not prohibited by the ruling elite. So they wondered out loud about the unknowns of the day. What ever Nietzsche may say , the 'Socratic method' of insistence on examining one's basic beliefs and biases in an argument is still essential.

Trust me, compared to other philosophers, Nietzsche is actually fun to read.

You'll only ger a part of the story by watching these videos. It needs to be read

Thank you! Cheers!

Even just the very idea that Power = Good and Lack of Power = Bad, no matter how the Power was obtained, seems like a pretty shallow way to distinguish between Good and Bad

@@NondescriptMammal yes, it's essentially the philosophy of "might makes right", not very sophisticated when you really look at it.

Reading Nietzsche and understanding him is super complicated, I have yet achieved a level where I can read his books in under a year. But I do know that he never made such a black and white declaration about anything. His idea of power = good is not power as in tyrannical, opressive power. It's the Idea of competence, confidence building up strengh and taking on life at full force and determination. This is a sort of biological determinism, where people who are powerful, as in competent , should succeed and rule the weak, who are incompetent and lazy. The video here is made short for convenience , but Nietzsche adds a lot of flesh around his points of views and in the end he isn't as radical as it seems. I don't pretend to understand Nietzsche fully, but I do know that to make a constructive and good criticism of him, you have to read his whole work. This takes so much time and dedication that most of us will never achieve it. Either way, I think you are wrong about his idea of power and the video is also misleading because Nietzsche adds a lot of nuance to his critics. In some other books or chapters, he also admires Socrates for other things.

lol where do get these ideas from. Not even close !

@@dauvyde4665 i have read all of Ns stuff. Including his notebooks. This guy is terribly wrong.

Might unironically make for a good video…

Killing urself bcuz of another mans success beta move

but nietzsche didnt kill himself

You don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t belong in philosophy.

@@khyberkhyber193 I think that he meant that he destroyed himself, not kill himself literally.

Seems like Nietzche never had much of anything good to say about anything. Critical to a fault. He may be right about a lot of things, but he chose destruction over construction imo, and thus he only represents darkness in my mind, always has

If ERB put that lyric there intentionally then kudos to them! It’s surprisingly deep

@@WeltgeistYT long ago, when that ERB came out, my wife (philosophy major) made me pause it as soon as they said, “you owe each of your students here an apology.” She said, “Nietzsche would not call himself a student of Socrates.” Then we unpaused, and she was completely vindicated. I saw your thumbnail and had to stop by to relive that memory and share the joke.

Who?

@@byronobrien3121 Nietzsche

@unreasonable you say the Socratic method is a fraud? I agree that a normative assertion runs out of reason but that is not why he used the Socratic method. I think he used it to show people (usually the arrogant ones) that no matter what your belief is, there are ways to disprove that. His main point would be that do not fool yourself by thinking your way is the only right way, do not feel contempt with your conclusion on something. Having said that, I don't mean that whatever opinions of beliefs you have might be wrong so you shouldn't believe in anything; rather to just keep an open mind and never feel contempt with you knowledge, always learn more!

@@HasanAli-ni4gi Your description might well be a very good, pragmatic way to approach reason, knowledge and debate, I try to follow this approach myself, but it is not at all what is going on in Socratic dialog or Platonic philosphy more generally. Plato - who actually wrote the dialogs - in his other works expounded the doctrine that there are absolute truths which only elites could grasp, just as "Socrates" does in the dialogs. At the end of every Socratic dialog, IIRC, the other diners say something like "Well, if eros (or whatever) is not A, B or C as you demonstrate, what is it?" at which Socrates makes a categorical statement that he claims is not just true, but necessarily true. The other diners would rather get drunk or have a go with the flute girls and boys by this stage - understandable after having listened to Socrates all night - so he gets the last word. The dialogs are a fraud because Socrates' own claims are not subjected to the same method of critique.

I think u understand what you mean. Are you trying to say that the Socratic dialogs written by Plato are biased because it is written by Socrates’ student which is Plato? Because Nietzsche made the same argument.

@@HasanAli-ni4gi Not sure what you mean by "biased" in this context. For all I know they are reasonably accurate representations of the kind of dialogs Socrates actually had. The point is that the kinds of assertions made by Socrates in the dialogs are the same kind of assertions that are made by Plato in writings not involving Socrates. Both make the case for "Platonic idealism": the real existence of ideal forms, of which our earthly empirical experience is merely a distorted reflection. What seems to have happened in popular understanding of philosphy, is that the idea of Socrates as a "good bloke" standing up for his principles has survived, while idealism as a viable philosphical system, complete with it's elitist baggage, has not. So people find it hard to grasp that Socrates was in fact an active antidemocratic subversive, who would have had no time whatsoever for fuzzy relativistic pragmatism. My original point was that Nietzsche's objection to Socrates; that he was of the mob; is very strange, given that Socrates was elitist, as reading Plato makes clear. Objecting to Socrates because he was ugly is much more reasonable. ;-) Socrates/Plato thought that using reason to reach a higher state was something only elites could do reliably. Nietzsche appears to believe that only elites could abandon reason to reach a higher state. I am going to leave it there: let's see how Weltgeist's "Why Nietzsche Hated Plato" video interprets this issue.