Great Minds Discuss People

[@uykuykuykkuhkhukuh]

"Small minds discuss people." - The quote that is all about discussing people

[@woodykusaki9970]

I think what it means is gossiping. Like nosy neighbors discussing the life of another person in a gossipy way.

[@AllanTidgwell]

No, it isn't "Discussing people" in this context is not talking about Sociology. If I discuss patterns in human behaviour, that's not discussing people. If I discuss about my neighbor, that's discussing people

[@woodykusaki9970]

@@AllanTidgwell exactly

[@Eukkky]

but we're talking here about the whole social groups and not individual ones

[@arthurw2059]

why is it not discuss of ideas? it is not discuss a specific person but a general human behavior.

[@Azathoth2980]

The fatal flaw of many ideas is the neglect of people

[@piewert787]

Well said

[@gabrieldelatortilla1]

That's what I'm trying to say!!! Once everybody realizes that everyone is as human as everybody else, people will stop trying to be more than other people and will be able to have common ground, connect, and understand each other.

[@triumph.over.shipwreck]

​@@gabrieldelatortilla1A utopian pipe dream centered around a nonsensical and dehumanizing caricature of existence. How can you possibly espouse such drivel?

[@gabrieldelatortilla1]

​@@triumph.over.shipwreckhey hey so this question really really interested me and I'm very interested in talking about this sort of thing with you but I don't have much time rn and I wanna ask... Is there any way other than KZbin where we can connect and chat better? I feel like you have very interesting points of view to share and I want to understand them and perhaps change mine to be more logical, perhaps, idk, anyways we'd have a great conversation. Hit me up bro

[@fusion9619]

Great minds discuss. I win.

[@dontmind_MyName]

End of discussion ?

[@alexanderthegreat-mx5zu]

​@@dontmind_MyNameSmall minds end discussions.

[@dontmind_MyName]

Yes. That's the joke. "I win." = End of a discussion --> He can't win and be a great mind at the same time.

[@alexanderthegreat-mx5zu]

@@dontmind_MyName Butt we can because great minds think alike.

[@NicoleColenico]

@@alexanderthegreat-mx5zu You mfs need to quit playing 4d chest on the reply section

[@mjolninja9358]

Low rizz discuss gyatts Mid rizz discuss mewing Great rizz discuss mogging

[@self-improver]

“Translate to English” 😭

[@ninjacats1647]

Well half of the words are in English...

[@goodfella1605]

Genius minds discuss edging!

[@Thecoldest-y7l]

Very true

[@cerez-secondforgetfulson]

Interesting insight 🧐, but why you do this 😫?

[@snekbrah]

Great video, very well put. It is also very ironic to realize that the idea of “Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people” is only really used in the context of discussing other people.

[@mymaster1402]

A person is an idea too.

[@heizensperg]

The quote is very clearly referring to gossip

[@AllanTidgwell]

No, it isn't. You're misusing the term "discussing people" In this context "the discussing of people" is not in a sociological sense, but in a social sense Discussing patterns in human behavior is not "discussing people". Discussing what you saw Dave from up the street doing is discussing people

[@AllanTidgwell]

​@@mymaster1402a person is not an idea. A person is an object. Try again

[@mymaster1402]

@@AllanTidgwell There is the object as an object and the object as an idea.

[@whoaitstiger]

I enjoy these occasional shorter form essays. They really round out the podcast as a whole.

[@untimelyreflections]

Thanks!

[@latenightlogic]

20 minutes is short? By comparison I suppose.

[@MsJavaWolf]

I guess a charitable reading of the quote about people/events/ideas could be that it still discusses people in the abstract and not any particular person. I always just understood it as saying something like that gossip is pointless, in a very practical sense it's different from a psychologist developing theories about the human psyche in general.

[@DefinitelyNotAMachineCultist]

I mean, ideas about people are still ideas. Gossip about the daily drudgeries of people that is focused on specific cases don't usually generalize. They have no applicability in the way more general ideas about them do. Less useful.

[@joshmastiff1128]

​@@DefinitelyNotAMachineCultist the thing that annoys me is how I seem to not be able to keep up with people who go on and on about events. I just can't, it's boring. No demeaning, nothing. Just boring and I can't do it. I feel out of place

[@siyaindagulag.]

"If one finds their desire, not merely the object of their desire then one would lay a hand on their soul". C G Jung.

[@kludgedude]

You can’t get rid of your desires since “you”, as far as consciousness goes, are a collection of desires. Life is better when in the zone so to speak, a conscious unconscious state.

[@WilfrionWil]

True getting rid of desires is a desire too. Its like youre trying to do surgery on yourself...

[@brreezy421]

Don't resist. Flow like water 💧

[@somedude142]

What about impulses? I feel the line in that state is quite thin and rare as it is.

[@Laotzu.Goldbug]

_Great minds discuss ideas about people by examining the things that they do._ Or something like that

[@sealplayz9329]

It seems contrary to the spirit of this quote to claim that the discussion of human psychology, an idea, is the equivalent of gossiping about an individual. Intelligent people do discuss people, but in the context of their roles in major events or how they contribute to overall ideas. These events are then discussed in the context of forming overall conclusions and worldviews. Not every discussion by an intelligent person will have or should have all these elements, but all intelligent people will enjoy and regularly wish to delve into these types of discussions. You have to be very uncharitable to assume this quote means otherwise.

[@untimelyreflections]

It’s just a jumping off point to talk about Nietzsche’s perspective and think about things from another angle. Chill out

[@ZhanTodorov]

Beautifully put

[@josemarialaguinge]

But upon watching the video you realize something different.

[@PeterIntrovert]

02:12 "Non-Stop lecture about nothing but ideas that can be just as annoying as an obsession with gossip" I appreciate auto-irony and distance to yourself. 😂 👍🏻 Great vid 🔥

[@etymonlegomenon931]

I still think the original maxim (whatever source it comes from) is true, but this is one of those cases where knowing two contradictory aphorisms gives you knowledge of a secret, stronger third one. If I were to try to join them, I'd say that great minds are entertained when moving down the hierarchy of complexity but small minds are irritated moving up it. Also, one thing your video inadvertently demonstrates is that it is possible to analyze people with the complexity of a machine or a philosophy. (It's also possible to treat ideas as reified or anthropomorphized things...) Last point: I worry that inferring a psychological intention into every statement of an idea only averts one's eyes from the idea to the person. Regardless, thought-provoking and compelling video.

[@lukesapir1590]

This, by far, is my favorite video interpretation featuring some of the more "ugly" intertextualities in Nietzsche's writings -- that is, it really aptly captures Nietzsche's points clearly without focusing too much on the "drama" or "scandalous" elements. You took his ideas seriously and showed them in their most generous light, and I think when read seriously in this way Nietzsche shows that he is easily one of the greatest minds who ever wrote. Your video really captures that element of Nietzsche that is so constructive and illuminating in the nuanced ways he critiques the ideas of others, mainly by understanding the sources of these ideas, and thus tapping into the "Great Suspicion" that he mentions early on in The Genealogy of Morality.

[@fahrettinkarayurt6148]

This is great ı am generally critisicized for discussing the motives of people instead of abstract ideas and problems of those ideas but simply we create the ideas and this creation might be even far from our rationalization as you mentioned so we need the understand human nature and psychology for the best perception on how we shape our ideas and through them the world

[@liethrabi9685]

This was such a beautifully well made video, the opening premise and the way it's all tied up together in the end.

[@ChristianDall-p2j]

0:01 This video is the first time i have ever heard the saying! At least as far as i Can remember!

[@thehuman2cs715]

Amazing video, it pretty much lays out the same conflict I have had within myself for a while and resolves it with the help of these two old philosophers that had the same conundrum. I gotta read Nketszche now, and maybe Schopenhauer too. Thank you very much for the video.

[@TheWilliamHoganExperience]

Schopenhauer doth protest too much Nietzsche thinks. Glad you delved into the psycho-sexual in this podcast. Seems it forms one of the pillars of Nietzsche's ideas about The Will. This makes sense given how front and center sexuality was to Freud's conception of human motivation, and how sharply this conception contrasted with the Victorian morals of the time. Freud was of course heavily influenced by Nietzsche. It's fascinating how sexual desire remains such taboo and impolite topic to this day, despite it's utter ubiquity. Taboo opens the door to shame and hypocrisy when attached to unconscious, irresistible instinct. Schopenhauer rightly surmised that sexual desire is the source of life itself. His hatred of of life led to his hatred of sex. Nice. Nietzsche recognized this, and reframed it brilliantly. Sexual desire is a misunderstood, occult, and famously demonized aspect of human experience. Nietzsche's deconstruction and inversion of Schopenhauer's rejection of sex was concieved of as a war raging within Schopenhauer himself over his own will! Schopenhauer was horny but was unable to get laid. An OG INCEL. So he rejected his sexual desires and blamed women for them. That this happened at a young age is understandable. But he clung to these sophomoric sexual ideas throughout his life, proving himself a case of arrested development. Oh well - most genius is botched. Raphael without a penis! Was this insight of Nietsche's was prefigured by Shakespeare? Schopenhauer doth protest too much Nietzsche thinks. The question is, what doth Nietzsche protest too much? Resentment methinks! =)

[@Laotzu.Goldbug]

I think you were close but missed it to a degree. Schopenhower was definitely not an incel. At the end of the day he was a successful academic and fairly well known and had enough money to live comfortably, he could have had a girlfriend or even a wife, or visited ladies of the night if you wanted to. He wasn't living in a drought. I never met him so I can't say for certain, but it seems that the source of hit discomfort was not so much the inability to satisfy his sexual needs in a mechanistic sense but his inability to come to grips with the desire in general. Whether this means that he was repulsed by the idea of it and upset that he even had the desire to begin with, or he was disgusted by the idea of it or even the act of it, or a variety of other things it's clear that conceptions of sex are what upset him. of course you might say that he was just depressed and really generally hated life in general and just latched on to the sexual impulse as the source of life as something to direct his anger at towards being born. Either way this was not the case of some shutting in a basement who couldn't get some and then raged, but rather of someone who was clearly fundamentally ill at ease in the _act of existing_ itself and created a system of thought to justify that. of course that doesn't mean that his system of thought was necessarily wrong, but it does mean it did not come from a place of this passionate objective deduction as he might seek to present. (After all if he really believed that existence itself was void and the best thing was to exit it, there were numerous opportunities for him to end his life, rather than sitting down to the well spread dinners he was reported to enjoy each evening). I suppose one could make the case that the story of the original Buddha himself - as an archetype regardless of whether he actually existed historically or not - is fundamentally the same thing. not a question of someone who was denied access but a man who could access anything but could not enjoy any of it and thus made war on the world itself because perhaps he felt that it had made war on him by bringing him into existence. On a wider scale one could also make the case that any sort of philosophizing whatsoever of any kind must always be born out of a certain discomfort or illities because someone who is completely comfortable or at ease in the world and their particular life simply would not have the inclination to ever try to explain or dissect it but would merely just live it. even if this was in the most unself aware animal sense they would at least be congruent with their reality. Maybe there is something metaphysical or even spiritual about the nature of man, the thing that makes him more than just an animal, that dictates that he must always be uncomfortable at least in some small portion and and this is both the driver of and cost that must be paid for all the things he is able to create because of that.

[@polymathable]

This is fantastic. Love the perspective you delivered!​@@Laotzu.Goldbug

[@polymathable]

Amazing, I like this take on Schopenhauer. Maybe he was just a frustrated genius! 😂😂

[@123durpdurp]

Interesting video essay! Idioms like these tend to get stuck in the zeitgeist, so they make great targets for philosophical doubt/thought.

[@northmantru6236]

Your work is greatly appreciated.

[@bellad_01]

This is my first time stumbling on this page and I knew that voice sounded familiar when I heard it. I'm a big fan of The Nietzsche podcast. Definitely subscribing to this too!

[@ummon995]

Deleuze and Nietzsche. What a great combo when read together.

[@cosmicprison9819]

Ultimately, this is just an excuse for not only ad-hominem attacks, but also moral relativism. “Eat healthy and exercise” isn’t less valid if an overweight person says it than when a professional athlete says it. In fact, the overweight person has the experience of why the alternative is worse - something somebody who never struggled with their weight can’t relate to. Yet, we like to use evidence of hypocrisy in someone advocating for a given idea as a refutation of the idea as a whole. In other words, once again: As an ad-hominem fallacy.

[@untimelyreflections]

Ad hominem isn’t a fallacy. It’s the chad way to argue. If you disagree, you are an incel. The end,

[@cosmicprison9819]

@@untimelyreflections Yeah, I’m pretty sure that’s the way Nietzsche would like to argue. 😂 In that case, I’ll just point at Nietzsche’s own life and how miserable he was, especially towards the end, while Schopenhauer seems to have lived a pretty chill life.

[@untimelyreflections]

@@cosmicprison9819 interesting argument, too bad I’ve imagined you as a soy wojak

[@cosmicprison9819]

@@untimelyreflections Reality doesn’t care about your imaginations.

[@untimelyreflections]

@@cosmicprison9819 reality doesn’t care about the comments section either

[@ahmedmohiuddin4567]

I have also came to this conclusion of studying People glad someone agreed

[@oteila6151]

Really great video, that quote was getting on my nerves for a long time, interesting to see where it came from. Also really good editing!

[@dukromeo]

great minds create and listen to good music. ☝

[@domovoi_0]

Great stuff brother. Love and blessings!

[@connorglint7426]

I was once active in a circle where some people would keep glamorizing Nietzsche and other eminent deceased historical figures. They couldn’t stop idolizing them it became unnerving, it’s as if the aesthetic and intellectual is knit with the selected individuals. Guess they were no different from normal people but the needs are greater

[@illatitante161]

Idolizing Nietzsche is peak last man behavior

[@connorglint7426]

Who am I to blame them, when all they do is think about nietzsche and his intellectual brilliance than actually realizing the virtue of his message - as much as he critique the notion of values due to a lack of better word.

[@kaioxys]

But it’s not like only one person can have an idea. Many different people come to the same conclusion, even conclusions like ‘you can’t allow other people’s influence to cloud your thinking.’ Because there basically isn’t any new thought, it’s hard to think that an idea is tied to a person when the idea comes from many. Most likely, people came to those conclusions in combination of both their predisposition and the systems around them that mold their thinking, so there is truth found in all of it. I find the greatest difficulty facing all humans is assumed mutual exclusivity.

[@GS42SCHOPAWE]

Great comment

[@straussbolkonsky]

This means when considering Nietzsche's idea we should consider his person. A video on this would be interesting, linking Nietzsche's life and physical health and relationships to his philosophy just like he did with Schopenahuer.

[@alecmisra4964]

17:57 the flying Italians.

[@NDAsDontCoverIllegalActs]

2:53 I've always taken the "people" in the quote as meaning a specific group or person in a gossipy way not as a cursory incidental as in your example. If you mention a person's name briefly to attribute their quote, that's entirely different than discussing their life's minutae at length in a group chat, for instance.

[@THG1995]

Nietzsche roasting Schopenhauer for basically being an frustrated incel is the best burn i've encountered this week.

[@bhajandaniel9771]

I know that I operate primarily in the domain of ideas and things, with events and people revolving around the ideas. This doesn't necessarily turn out to be dry; it can intriguing, say, or funny at times. But my focus always seems to be ideas except when I'm upset by something. In contrast, almost everyone I talk to mainly talks about people and how they feel about them; if they're not talking about people, they're talking about their other likes and dislikes, for example food or movies, (and sometimes getting into heated arguments over these matters). If they discuss events, like politics, the subject is similarly soaked in emotion so that there's very little of real thinking involved...rather, thought follows emotion as shadows follow their objects. I wouldn't break the domains of thinking and conversing into three tiers as in people, events and ideas but would say that people tend to be moved and controlled by emotion and preference or ideas and understanding.

[@DanPugongan]

thank u for sharing another way to sift through ideas

[@slothdemon5620]

Bros will really construct an entire metaphysical philosophy of will and representation just to not deal with their mommy issues

[@alexanderleuchte5132]

19:00 This reminded me of the band LEEWAY, the singer died recently. RIP Eddie Sutton. i'm going to listen to "Born to Expire" now This is a good format to get some quality Nietzsche interpretation out to people who prefer the very popular short format Philosophy videos here on YT and maybe wouldn't immediately be drawn to hour long deep dives and readings

[@AquariusGate]

Well found my friend, this is a gem 9f information. Yes, people is the greatet metaphor of an unknown self, and whatever else utilised in the ends of making sense. 7:22 knowledge is the dissolution of worries. This truth hammers all worry to absurdity. No surface dramas are worth chnging underlying flows too arbitrarily.

[@Everywhere4]

It seems that man’s philosophy is a product of one decision, either to embrace this life and this world or to try to escape it. This pattern has first appeared in western philosophy between Aristotle and Plato and has repeated itself since then. This dispute between the immanent and transcendent way of philosophizing might be the greatest division within philosophy.

[@ducksies]

I think you might be misunderstanding the quote a bit, discussing people here refers to something akin to gossiping or talking about celebrities, discussing events refers to discussing ongoing events such as wars or elections and discussing ideas is well, discussing more general ideas, usually not restricted to social or temporal contexts

[@Dhrrhee3e11a76]

Please please please more of these short essays!

[@williamprescott6432]

Remember that Nietzsche wrote this at a time when he was in academia in the shadow of Schopenhauer, who he was likely envious of. So really it goes back to the psychology of Nietzsche

[@untimelyreflections]

That’s actually not true. Not only did Nietzsche write these words after he had long departed from academia, the two men were not contemporaries and Nietzsche was never in Schopenhauer’s “shadow”. Nietzsche also taught philology which was a totally different discipline. In fact, Nietzsche was a huge fan of Schopenhauer, and bonded with Wagner over their mutual love of his work. Much of his early philosophy is very Schopenhauer influenced. That being said, Yes! We should always refer the claim back to the psychology of the one making it.

[@williamprescott6432]

@@untimelyreflections oh well thank you for correcting me, I was wrong on that one and I guess they never had direct contact

[@dexi6111]

Basically, you're not you when you're hungry. Eat a snickers.

[@felipegermano5974]

Thank you!

[@nocturne3455]

20 minute videos are the way

[@cosmicprison9819]

Schopenhauer: “Religions frame s*x as a sin because it leads to procreation.” Modern Christians: “S*x is a sin if it doesn’t lead to procreation!” 😂

[@marshalmiller1323]

This blew my mind

[@michaelfranklin1109]

Super informative and interesting and clear explanations! 🙏 When I had thought of that quote, I assumed that maybe implicit in it is that there are qualitatively different ways to talk about people. One ways is substantive/fruitful and from a place of openness and curiosity(e.g., in the realm of psychology/philosophy), but there is also gossipy and degrading ways to talk about people. Maybe if you consider “talking about people” strictly in this gossipy way, the quote is more defendable. I know this type of conversation is my least favorite whereas talking about psychology is my favorite -- so as Nietzsche points out, I recognize this interpretation of mine is inherently biased 🤪

[@jrpgwhisperer3296]

Feels like a strange interpretation of the intial 3 tiers of intellect quote. My own interpretation is that the weaker mind discusses the superficial aspects of people. The intermediate delves one layer deeper to investigate the circumstances and the final tier delves further to try to discern the motivations driving them. Which is what this video tried to portray by equating the analysis of the ideas and motives of people as analyzing people itself. While it might seem a trivial difference a simple example to demostrate it is discussing a person's attire on a given day and a discussion of a person's attire in relation to his station in life. The difference is between a superficial conversation and an ideological conversation geared towards educated inferences

[@ministerofjoy]

Thank you🎉

[@Tarzanvision]

Damn good stuff, sir

[@driesclans8974]

Does anybody know the name of the painting on 6:12?

[@yotamshabtay7220]

Thank you! A long time fan of the podcast. A question: would you consider making an episode about George Bataille's writing, and it's relation to Nietzsche's? I recently got into reading him (specifically "The accursed share" and "Theory of religion") and found it amazingly insightful, and a very interesting elaboration on some of Nietzsche's ideas. I know right now we're reading the gay science, just an idea :) (In particular I think Bataille's notion of general economy is a genius explanation of Nietzsche's will to power, but this comment is getting too long for this)❤

[@JoyfulWisdom1]

Great video. Do you teach anywhere? One thing you omitted is that in BGE 6, he mentions that there COULD be a type of person who's driven fundamentally by a drive for knowledge (will to truth) WITHOUT essentially involving the rest of the drives - the scholar, the scientist. Their quest for knowledge would really be "impersonal" as their real "interests" would usually lie somewhere else entirely, as Nietzsche writes, "with the family, or earning money, or in politics". It would even be indifferent for the scholar/scientist in which field they chose to work - philology, mycology, or chemistry or whatever - because "it doesn’t signify anything about them that they become one thing or the other" because they are driven by that pure will to knowledge, irrespective of the field. However, I personally am not sure if that person exists anywhere, most scientists I know are pretty passionate about their own fields and couldn't imagine themselves working in another.

[@txikitofandango]

What is this footage at 5:30? Seems interesting

[@untimelyreflections]

Early psychoanalysis experiments with somnambulic childhood regression

[@MT-xu7dh]

Great minds discuss all these things

[@darillus1]

Keegan is getting in the zone

[@luketyika1351]

11:39 Yeah, this statement was definitely made before the existence of the internet.

[@pyb.5672]

“We must not begin by talking of pure ideas, - vagabond thoughts that tramp the public roads without any human habitation, - but must begin with men and their conversation” - Charles Sanders Peirce

[@hgriff14]

i always thought about how that quote is talking about 3 different people whenever i heard it. i never took it seriously because of that.

[@dukromeo]

great minds build and respect grand structures and gardens. talk is cheap. remember this as you carry on endlessly.

[@kennethanderson8827]

Dude- thank you. Kenny Carl wept

[@noahnoah2020]

Your videos are incredible. I would love to see a Thus Spoke Zarathustra walkthrough after The Gay Science. The Gay Science ones have been AMAZING. Your insights r so helpful

[@kinanabouassali3608]

I'd love to hear your thoughts on Khalil Gibran

[@intptointp]

The only reason an idea would permeate at all is if it is an idea that can be understood by more than the original thinker. In other words, everyone who sees the idea is the “creator” of it. The very fact that ideas can be communicated means the people are not the fundamental part of them.

[@myreddays]

Isn't that a Nietzsche quote? I read it recently in one of his books. I remember It clearly.

[@josemarialaguinge]

Great minds discuss people is quite simplistic, but great video nonetheless.

[@Wingedmagician]

thank you 🙏

[@bigmansyndrome8945]

I had this same idea (that "great minds discuss people") a few weeks ago (which, I suppose, indicates that my mind still isn't great). But I'd go further in saying that discussing people that you've never met is more akin to discussing abstract ideas - Nietzsche's obsession with Greek figures who lived thousands of years prior is, in my opinion, a form of escapism on the same level as Schopenhauer's obsession with pessimistic metaphysics. Nietzsche's criticism of philosophy is a useful stepping stone, but he ultimately fails to separate himself from abstraction. Nietzsche's philosophy can be seen as being very treacherous, as it rightly critiques life-denying pessimism/metaphysics, but replaces it with its own abstract system of übermenschen, eternal return, will to power etc., which was really just Nietzsche's attempt at coping with his own unhappy life through philosophical escapism.

[@untimelyreflections]

The key point for me is that the idea is inseparable from the mind that produced or entertains it. We cannot forget the personal element in philosophy, the fact that ideas do not exist in a vacuum, they exist in minds. I don’t agree that N’s life was unhappy. He struggled to affirm life in spite of a lot of suffering from his condition, but his writings overflow with joy.

[@bigmansyndrome8945]

@@untimelyreflections I certainly agree that ideas should be evaluated alongside the mind that created them (if, indeed, ideas should be evaluated at all...) But don't you feel that Nietzsche, being isolated in his little house, sexually unsatisfied, physically unhealthy etc. was trying to create an alternative reality to escape to? When I read Thoreau, Nietzsche, Emerson etc, I started to feel that their hatred of "provincialism", love of the Greeks etc. was due to a desire to mentally escape from their physical surroundings, and into an almost purely intellectual world. And if I'm being entirely honest, I also feel that Nietzsche's "joy" was forced due to the burden placed upon him by his own philosophy (a burden that was almost definitely extremely exhausting for him, and - I believe - contributed to his insanity).

[@untimelyreflections]

@@bigmansyndrome8945 He chose to go stay by himself in an inn in the Swiss Alps. As someone who has been there in the summer, no, it's far from a miserable experience. He also spent his winters in Genoa, Turin, Rome, etc. He maintained correspondences with numerous friends, and they often came and visited him. Many of his best friends were women, some of which came onto Nietzsche. The idea that because one woman rejected him (and even that story is dubious, sourced to twenty years after the fact) he was "sexually frustrated" is simply a smear at this point. And especially given that his philosophy entirely advocates against creating another world, and attempts to best reflect the real world, I do not really agree with your point, no. I see him as a man who made the most of his life, which was always destined to be shortened by illness, and filled with suffering. He spent it "6000 feet above man and time", taking in the glorious vistas and free air of the Alps. > And if I'm being entirely honest, I also feel that Nietzsche's "joy" was forced due to the burden placed upon him by his own philosophy (a burden that was almost definitely extremely exhausting for him, and - I believe - contributed to his insanity). Nietzsche's philosophy imposed a burden on Nietzsche? That doesn't make much sense to me. What exactly is the idea here? "He was so burdened by a philosophy of life-affirming joy". If he created that philosophy, he must have had a need for it, and if it was a burden, then he must have needed such a burden. The idea that this "contributed" to his insanity is ahistorical. The man was born with a congenital illness that plagued him from the age of 12. He showed numerous physiological symptoms of this (visual phosphenes, partial blindness and migraines) throughout his lifetime, even when he was a young Lutheran. I just find the notion that we should ignore the physical reality and attribute the cause to ideations to be extremely dubious.

[@bigmansyndrome8945]

@@untimelyreflections Don't you believe that his obsession with Greeks (who he'd never met) and concepts like eternal return, ubermensch etc. (which he'd never experienced) were effectively creating a hinterwelt? There was nothing real or tangible about those things; despite this, he devoted a huge amount of energy thinking about them. To me, this is a symptom of mental sickness. I didn't intend to smear Nietzsche. I respect him for a lot of what he said, which is why I watch your channel (which is the best channel on Nietzsche by a long shot) The Alps are certainly a nice place, but a human being needs family to reach their full potential. Living alone is unhealthy, even if friends visit occasionally. I believe Nietzsche would have been a lot healthier if he'd focused more on tangible things, such as diet, climate, human relationships etc. Which we know he did, to quite an extent, but his intellectual obsessions sapped energies. From my own experience, I've found that philosophical obsessions can be detrimental to health - Nietzsche knew this too, which is why he rightly attacked so much of philosophy. And yet, he couldn't rid himself entirely of it, and eventually simply replaced it with his own metaphysical system (of will to power, which he was becoming more and more possessed by as he grew older and sicker).

[@bigmansyndrome8945]

@@untimelyreflections Joy comes from tangible things, like the sun, nutrition, relationships etc. not philosophy. Nietzsche tried and failed to created a joyful philosophy, because such a thing is impossible - philosophy is a symptom of sickness, no matter how "joyful" it attempts to be. The valuable parts of Nietzsche are his criticisms of philosophy. The negative parts are where he attempts to replace it with more philosophy.

[@illatitante161]

Great minds do not discuss anything at all

[@cam-dasmartman]

Insightful

[@overman2306]

Nietzsche thought that the pre-soctratic ideas built ancient Greece and the Socratic ideas led to the downfall of ancient Greece.

[@kludgedude]

Strategic vs tactical ideas don’t exist in isolation but in events and the people participating in those events

[@TheSnake69420]

While it is well to think of the origin of an idea, to think of what psychology and pathology lead to its realization, even Nietzsche himself would not suggest, as I, perhaps falsely, perceive you to suggest, that a psychological evaluation of a thinker can refute or argue against an idea. Even if Schopenhauer’s idea of life comes from a pathological demonization of the world, of himself and his drives, that doesn’t invalidate the claim, because evaluating even an epistemological method doesn’t speak to its results, only their certainty, their justification, which even if rooted in a psychology, are really constituted by rationalization.

[@stevenbattles]

Hell yeah dude!

[@noveltycrusade]

I do like minds ❤

[@UltraRik]

Women discuss people men discuss things debatebros discuss ideas

[@GS42SCHOPAWE]

This a great point but I don’t understand how exactly the process of ideas are being reflected by a person’s lived experience works, because multiple ideas from different people and different historical periods can come together, so how can you say those ideas originated from that person maybe that person or philosopher was a filter for those ideas, but it seems like ideas and concepts are more complicated than solely being crafted by one person, reality is complicated

[@teawhydee]

great great great video

[@graphixkillzzz]

great minds become the people that small minds talk about 🤔🤷‍♂️

[@jeftecoutinho]

3:00 Bruh

[@aulus6]

Does this appear only on youtube, not on podcast?

[@untimelyreflections]

Yes. I will probably upload the audio to the RSS feed in the coming weeks.

[@aulus6]

@@untimelyreflections great, just don't want to miss something. #nietzscheoverdose

[@arcomegis9999]

The first few instances of listening to this quote irked me. Something doesn’t feel right, even when it is attributed to famous figures. At that moment, now that I understand myself better, back then an instinct deep within the subconscious was trying to tell me that it’s highly unlikely for any of these great people to say that. The quote doesn’t match their characters and ideals.

[@MacronLacrom]

Well women generally talk more about people, and men ideas. Where all the most intelligent are men, and women are more concerned with personal connection. They're also way more likely to gossip, and in book reading they're reportedly most likely to want to know how that person feels.

[@dukromeo]

everyone knows it's called gossip. - unless the person has passed. in which case it's trivia and not far from gossip in most cases. w/e

[@ilyrain3540]

Well great minds discuss ideas of any person so it avoids authority or fame status fallacy

[@socrates2788]

3:00 “Well, this quote discusses people.” Wrong. The quote is not discussing “people” in the same sense used in the quote itself. It is quite different to talk about categories/types of people (generalizations and categorizations are “ideas”) than to talk about the characteristics or actions related to particular individuals.

[@untimelyreflections]

No, you’re wrong, it literally discusses people.

[@socrates2788]

@untimelyreflections I have little faith that you understood my comment because you didn’t acknowledge the distinction that I drew.

[@StevenDykstra-u3b]

Eleanor Roosevelt. 12 seconds in. Prizes?

[@authenticallysuperficial9874]

You're misunderstanding the quote... it doesn't condemn discourse on human topics.

[@authenticallysuperficial9874]

It is less profound to speak of Mr. Kennedy or the barber's wife. Not psychology and sociology.

[@untimelyreflections]

Dude, it’s just a hook to discuss an idea in Nietzsche.

[@cyancat8633]

​@untimelyreflections can you canpare 4 forms of thought the 18 to 19 century western thought medival arabuc thought Indian medics and ancient China philosophy and Confucius?

[@AyberkGürses]

This will be a little off topic but I have a hard time reconciling the idea that our faculties were evolved selecting for survival instead of truth with the great success of physical sciences and engineering in our times. If the truth is something we invented for survival, how come we are able to predict and manipulate the world in contexts completely irrelevant from our evolution (Take microelectronics as an example)?

[@JacquesSauniere3]

So let's psychoanalyze Nietzsche

[@untimelyreflections]

LFG

[@whodarboilebamnames3990]

He already did

[@Laotzu.Goldbug]

One could make the case that this entire podcast series is effectively about that. He certainly hasn't shied away from it.

[@StevenDykstra-u3b]

Of course, Nietzsche said our philosophies are extensions of our bodily states. How's that play into this? 😊 HEGEL traced back history to great men-as their extension in into the world. Some overlap...huh?

[@ZhanTodorov]

“Hey, you know Tom’s barber, who’s sister is married to an attorney, that attorney’s nephew went to Iraq, because his 2nd wife Nancy, convinced him to open a shop, where they sell shellfish.” - is the type of discussion for small minds.

[@kennethanderson8827]

Apologies for not keeping up with the Gaya Scienza book series, but there is something to be said about having the heaviest year/month//weeks///week of my nearly 57 years of living outside the womb. Oy fucking vey- - what was I gonna say- oh yeah- let’s get Good Rich. Not the mendacious, audacious, and rapacious variety- - - No. Wow!- - - The Good Kind!!! Let the reign of artistas commence. Ha ha ho ho hee hee🧠🧠🧠

[@encouraginglyauthentic43]

Shoppingtower misunderstood buddhism. Attachment to desire is what leads to suffering. According to buddhism

[@ilyrain3540]

Shroppenhaur admired buddhism what are you talking about He was studying the link between desire (will to live) and suffering (duhkha). In concordance with the Buddhist texts

[@encouraginglyauthentic43]

@@ilyrain3540 Buddhist texts says that attachment to desire is suffering. Shoppingtower says that desire itself causes suffering, which is not in line with Buddhist teachings.

[@kalervolatoniittu2011]

To disguss of ideas,is to do monologies

[@HoradrimBR]

C'mon, gossip is low level, everybody knows that !

[@natepolidoro4565]

There are a lot of people who are so smart, but not enough to know they're dumb.

[@Robert_Gray]

A man is an idea. God is an idea.