You should consider getting a better microphone.

almost 2025 and the best expalnation i found lol, the truth table for this is so confusiong

Sir so much helpful video for my study

I am the creator, so I create! I am God, God is ME! I am the Stars, the stars are ME! I am the Universe, the Universe is ME! BLACK MAGIC BLACK MAGIC! BLACK MAGIC! ALMIGHTY SELF! WE ARE!

Hi, I'm dr. Jason J Campbell and I want to thank you for taking the time to make these videos. I don't know if you will ever read this, and I know you didn't do it for me, but I have benefited greatly. What an impressive undertaking and, again, a sincere thank you.

Who is Nietzsche to tell me if i should want revenge or not? Maybe it's what drives me and will bring me the most personal satisfaction.. Maybe it's my will to power? It seems to me that the drive for revenge is instinctual. Biological.

There seems to be an equivocation occurring between absolute truth and supposed truth. Truth by definition is not amorphous, instead our belief in a certain idea as true is what is amorphous and being discussed.

It seems to me that the malleability of truth is not inherent in truth as such but instead a demonstration that what we were calling 'truth' was not, in fact, true.

I see the contradiction of a rigid adherence to a single, absolute, moral framework ('truth') but that doesn't mean there isn't a truth to be had. Clearly, something is happening in the universe (I think therefore I am) as defined by my experience (consciousness) and so it follows that there has to be some actual truth to the matter, whether or not we have access to it - SOMETHING is causing my experiences. In regards to personal happiness the actual truth is an amalgamation of smaller truths or I guess I would call them 'situational truths'. I mean, it must be true that certain things will make you happy, and others not, it's just that claiming this truth is the same for everyone (or even just yourself) in every situation is clearly problematic.

I must be misunderstanding... Did people truly not have concepts of the transcendental before plato? What about older cultures with their own mythologies that pre date plato, such as Egyptian and Mesopotamian cultures, which def had their own ideas of divinity, the afterlife, and such?

Daddy N. wants us to have more Dr. Frankensteins.

This is how people become radicalized anti-humanists. If humans literally can't control themselves due to nature, and if we can't control their nature for them (the state), is it not just true despair?

We're back to that earlier line that is so rife with genius: 'Evil resides in the gaze that sees evil in all things' (quoting from memory not from the text). Indeed, when your gaze views the world and those who reside in it as 'sick' what else can the world be but a hospital and your moral value judgements the ostensible 'medicine'?

Well, I think he is talking about every thing very clearly I think I’m not smart with logic problem but when he is talking, I think that I can really know what he’s talking about. He’s a good teacher good professor.

I wonder if the good Dr. would support guys like andrew tate (or whatever his name is) and his ilk who have popped up in recent years.

this all reminds me of Howard Beale's speech from 1976's Network: "...you have to get MAD!"

Attempting to imagine experience of a consciousness that never encounters denial is a surreal thought experiment. It's almost as if you would view the entire world as an extension of your will.

person a: I did this for others person b: No, you did that for yourself. Who has the burden of proof? The answer is that they both do, and until either side can introduce epistemological evidence the answer is unknowable. Person b is going farther than refuting the claim by making their own and therefore create their own burden of proof.

I think Nietzsche is correct however the question of whether endorsing this attitude universally is conducive to human flourishing. Even if you think human flourishing is a questionable goal this unchecked, self indulgent, egoistic will to power is leading us to existential issues such as irreversible ecological conditions that are entirely anti-human, anti-life, and anti-biological - All sentiments that Nietszche has so far been in support of. I get it. Other people are going to come at you with this will to power and you can't just sit there like a wet noodle and say 'wahhh, it ISN'T RIGHT!'. But just going about your life flinging shit everywhere because it benefits you is despicable.... Not because you OUGHT not do it for some moral reason but because it leads to a world that nobody wants to live in. Still waiting for daddy N. to change my mind.

The reason people focus on intention over consequence is because, yes while it might work out in favor of others or humanity on the occasions where ego's overlap, acting in this way all the time can and does lead to intense misery, suffering, and oppression. Can this kind of egoism create a Mother Theresa? Sure. It also creates hitler and stalin and mao and genghis khan, etc. The suppression of instincts and egoism is literally the definition of society.

jesus, maybe we can just define 'good' as 'that which is not horrific'. That way we can say 'cutting the arms of a bunch of kids is bad actually'. If this is what Nietzsche really wants us to believe then he shouldn't be so opposed to christianity or dogma. It is simply the successful result of peoples (sacerdotal class, etc.) will to power manifest in control of, and rejection of control against, others.

If it's the case that there will always be those with the 'will to power' and it is also the case that law is necessary to control that power it then follows that law is antithetical to the 'will to power'. What are laws if not value judgements? We *want* to live in a world where we don't fear being murdered while going for a walk therefore we create a system that aspires to it. What I'm saying is that it seems to me that you can't both endorse the will to power and also endorse the law. Everyone following their own will to power is literally anarchy.

It's true that the desire to be good is a sort of 'castration' of power for sure, but the real question is whether or not that becoming the zeitgeist would actually make the world a better place (for humans). The issue seems especially poignant in existential matters. Like if everyone just goes around farting and pooping everywhere because it's convenient for them (their 'will to power') then eventually we'll die because we only have farts left to breathe.

In a sense he's saying our (impoverished) world is already perfect because it doesn't get any better than reality. As he says earlier, a perfect act is one that is unfiltered through consciousness. In a weird way it's like an overabundance of consciousness leads directly to the problematic of morality, and perfection to Nietzsche is a state or act that eschews this notion entirely.

What book(s) would you recommend on argumentative Writing. Please note, I have been studying philosophy for 20+ years and logic for 10+ years. Furthermore, I have read several books on critical thinking and am currently studying LSAT reasoning. However, I am 43 and only have a HS diploma. I never even took the SAT. In a word, argumentative writing. What would be your top 3 - 7?

Anthologies. Yes!!!

My mom said I'm perfect so basically he's calling my mom a liar. The audacity!

"I'm not on drugs... I'm on NIETZSCHE!" - Jason J Campbell Where do I order the T-Shirt!?

Preciate this video fr

If you guys ever read this, you rock! Thanks for the perspectives. Still useful 13 years later.

Modern thinkers have adopted this concept as 'capitalis realism'. I think it was zijeck who coined that term but I'm not actually positive. Regardless, the fact is we eat, breath, and poop capitalism and therefore our very thoughts are filtered through capitalism, and it's values, as well. Obviously that's just a specific example of this principle in action.

I'm probably misunderstand or he is going to address this later in the text because I cannot see how N. could say christian morality is a control mechanism that uses reward and punishment to enforce itself but also that it's anti-free-will. Why would you need punishment or reward if there were no free will? I'm pretty sure any christian would just say you still have the will to choose to obey the moral imperative or not and those choices are what makes you a good christian/person or not.

"the beautiful thing about" ... "youtube is that it's absolutely against herd like behavior". Ahhhh, the good old days.

Charlie Sheen lol.. yeeeaaaaahh I remember that.

There is nothing contradictory. We have always been at war with Eurasia.

13 years later... thank you

I'm still not convinced that everybody adopting this philosophy, the will to power, wouldn't just lead to anarchy. People's will to power would overlap such that it would lead to either destruction of society or to a much more divided and elitist situation wherein, because people's will to power is actualized, oppression would be much more severe to account for everyone's resistance to being dominated. Are we supposing that we reach some kind of equilibrium where everyone's will cancels out the negative and leaves only the positive (i.e. the effects on others)?

Yes, we finally made it to the good part! Got a bit rough there at the start of book II for awhile...

...You can't have power unless someone else has an absence of it.

That's really interesting actually. If we are placing value on intent over action and grant that you could be defined by preference BEFORE you engage in any specific actions (e.g. as in the comments, "straight" or "homosexual" prior to any sexual act) then we would likewise have to grant that a killer (a person who has killed another person), who acts passionately in the moment, is not in fact a murderer but simply someone who has killed.

I think the doctor is a bit off on this note. By confusing 'psychological' with 'physiological' he seems to have been sent down a rabbit hole. I don't think he's wrong but what he's presenting doesn't seem to be contained within this specific note. I think what he's talking about here is a bit of an amalgamation of N.'s other ideas. My interpretation of this particular note is that because the consequences of "physiological exhaustion" (death, sickness, suffering) are so bad (N. avoids using value judgments here so he uses a bunch of other words) christian values find them more important than the consequences of being healthy (happiness, contentment, satisfaction, i.e a state of regularity) and also fear them. This caused them to posit a higher world, as well as the idea of other worlds in general.

My translation has it as "physiological", not "psychological", exhaustion. Clarification for anyone who comes after me...

let me guess, it was 12.b. lmao!

You just got served, son.

I'm not entirely convinced that a disposition can't lead to 'works'. He even says in the video that he has a disposition which leads him to create 'works' as well as share them. If I adopt a 'get er' done' attitude it will lead to me going around getting stuff done. I've read 192 like 30 times now and I'm pretty sure N. is claiming the specific disposition of 'Luthern' is leading to idleness, not disposition as a whole.

as the song in the lion king says: "there's more to do than can ever be done."

Ya'll hatin' on my man Santa?

The orchestraters use the lie to influence moderates and opponents yes, but it goes deeper than that. There will always be those that are beyond influence and to deal with this type of person they instead direct their influence towards opposing them ideologically. They don't have to be at all correct morally or epistemologically, just persuasive enough to cast doubt on the naysayers. To muddy the waters, so to speak, around any problematic discourse. (edit: Especially in concern with the masses, who don't spend the time or energy to learn themselves) You see this crap everywhere, especially on youtube where, even worse, you have a whole host of Big Brother's advocating for the status quo and also muddying the waters out of ignorance, because they have imbibed the koolaid. A truly despairing state of affairs that is still so very active and powerful today. At this point in the book it seems like N. is going to present the use of our own will to power as a means of escaping this system, however from my point of view it seems to lead to you becoming the oppressor yourself and perpetuating the cycle. Obviously I could be wrong here, but the thought makes me uneasy. Is it not the suppression of our instinct that is the very thing that defines society in the first place? Could we not find a way to instead suppress the will to power in all men equally, thereby creating a better world for everyone? Should this not be the goal we strive for? Is not the will to power in all men equally simply anarchy? ...I need time to digest this.

more like sacerSCROTAL class.... amiright!?!?

I hate that he's right.