NIETZSCHE Explained: The Joyful Science | God Is Dead | Eternal Recurrence (Full Analysis)

SUPPORT US ON PATREON:
▶ / weltgeistyt
WATCH:
▶ Why Nietzsche Hated Socrates: • Why Nietzsche Hated So...
▶ Why Nietzsche Hated Plato: • Why Nietzsche Hated Plato
OUR ANALYSES:
▶ Beyond Good and Evil: • NIETZSCHE Explained: B...
▶ The Antichrist: • NIETZSCHE Explained: T...
▶ Genealogy of Morals: • NIETZSCHE Explained: T...
▶ Twilight of the Idols: • NIETZSCHE Explained: T...
▶ The Will to Power: • NIETZSCHE: Will to Pow...
▶ Daybreak: • NIETZSCHE Explained: D...
The Joyful Science is one of Friedrich Nietzsche’s middle works. As a sort of sequel to Daybreak, it features many of the ideas for which Nietzsche would later become famous.
But when we look at the chronology, we see that the work was also released before his most well-known works such as Beyond Good and Evil, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, The Genealogy of Morals, and Twilight of the Idols and the Antichrist.
Although that’s not the entirely true, because the Joyful Science has an interesting publishing history. The first edition of the work was released in 1882, while a second edition, which added a fifth book and a prelude and appendix with poems, came out in 1887. So in between publishing the first and the second edition, Nietzsche wrote and released his two most famous works: Beyond Good and Evil and Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
And the additions to the second edition will sound very familiar to anyone who has read The Genealogy of Morals.
So in a way, the book we know as the Joyful Science functions as a sort of transition between the intermediate and the late Nietzsche. Many ideas that would come to dominate his thought in his later work, will find their first expression here. The two most notable ideas are the Death of God and the Eternal Recurrence.
In this series, we will discuss those ideas along with other central themes of the works. By the way, we have covered many of Nietzsche’s works right here on the channel. We have a full analysis of Beyond Good and Evil, On The Genealogy of Morals, Twilight of the Idols, The Antichrist, Daybreak, and Ecce Homo. Check the links in the description if you’re interested. If you like analyses like these, we highly recommend you subscribe to the channel and click the Bell button. Thank you!

[@WeltgeistYT]

This one took a long while to make. We hope you enjoy it. Likes and comments for the algorithm are always appreciated! ▶ www.patreon.com/WeltgeistYT

[@ready1fire1aim1]

ToE solution: The Theory of Everything, as to not be contradictory, would mean Theory of the Fundamentals of Everything. Could you imagine the Theory of the Specifics of Everything? Haha I contend Gottfried Leibniz was correct about the fundamentals of our contingent universe and he just lacked 2022 verbiage/common knowledge. More importantly is that humanity chose Isaac Newton's "real" universe, calculus, gravity, etc. This was a mistake. We need to correct this problem. I've done my couch 🛋 warrior self's best impression of finishing what Leibniz started (with the intention of destroying what Newton started): 0D = (point); exact location only; non-composite substance. (How ironic the symbol for Physics is the symbol for Metaphysics) 1D = line, straight; two points; composite substances 《0D (point) is exact location only; zero size; not a 'thing', not a 'part'; Monad》 "He is the invisible Spirit, of whom it is not right to think of him as a god, or something similar. For he is more than a god, since there is nothing above him, for no one lords it over him. For he does not exist in something inferior to him, since everything exists in him. For it is he who establishes himself. He is eternal, since he does not need anything. For he is total perfection. A being can have a relationship with a God but not the Monad as that would be a contradiction." - The Apocryphon of John, 180 AD. Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the totality of all things. The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both. The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the monad as an elementary particle. It had a geometric counterpart, which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people. 1st four dimensions are 0D, 1D, 2D, 3D ✅. 1st four dimensions are not 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D 🚫. Human consciousness, mathematically, is identical to 4D quaternion algebra with w, x, y, z being "real/necessary" (0D, 1D, 2D, 3D) and i, j, k being "imaginary/contingent" (1D xi, 2D yj, 3D zk). 1D-9D 'contingent' universe has "conscious lifeforms" (1D xi, 2D yj, 3D zk)..."turning" 'time'. We're "turners", "to turn". Humanity is 3D zk. "Turn" to what, you might ask. 5D is the center. All things and parts are drawn to the center, the whole. [Contingent Universe]: 3 sets of 3 dimensions: (1D-3D/4D-6D/7D-9D) The illusory middle set (4D, 5D, 6D) is temporal. Id imagine we metaphysically create this middle set similar to a dimensional Venn Diagram with polarized lenses that we "turn" with our consciousness (which requires energy that we must consume i.e. calories to continue "to turn"). 1D-3D set/7D-9D set overlap creating the temporal illusion of 4D-6D set. 1D, 2D, 3D = spatial composite (line, width, height) 4D, 5D, 6D = temporal illusory (length, breadth, depth) 7D, 8D, 9D = spectra energies (continuous, emission, absorption) Symmetry: 1D, 4D, 7D line, length, continuous 2D, 5D, 8D width, breadth, emission 3D, 6D, 9D height, depth, absorption

[@ready1fire1aim1]

ToE (relevant information): According to theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli, time is an illusion: our naive perception of its flow doesn't correspond to physical reality. Indeed, as Rovelli argues in The Order of Time, much more is illusory, including Isaac Newton's picture of a universally ticking clock. Does time exist without space? Time 'is' as space 'is' - part of a reference frame in which in ordered sequence you can touch, throw and eat apples. Time cannot exist without space and the existence of time does require energy. Time, then, has three levels, according to Leibniz: (i) the atemporality or eternality of God; (ii) the continuous immanent becoming-itself of the monad as entelechy; (iii) time as the external framework of a chronology of “nows” The difference between (ii) and (iii) is made clear by the account of the internal principle of change. The real difference between the necessary being of God and the contingent, created finitude of a human being is the difference between (i) and (ii). 4D = architecture (structure) 5D = design (solution) Our universal constants have convoluted answers. Leibniz's Law of Sufficient Reason fixes this. FUNDAMENTALS > specifics, basically. Our calculus is incorrect (Leibniz > Newton): What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus? Newton's calculus is about functions. Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints. In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation. In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation. 0D = (point)/not a 1D point: [Math; Geometry] A point is a 0-dimensional mathematical object which can be specified in -dimensional space using an n-tuple ( , , ..., ) consisting of. coordinates. In dimensions greater than or equal to two, points are sometimes considered synonymous with vectors and so points in n-dimensional space are sometimes called n-vectors. [Math; 4D quaternion algebra] A quaternion is a 4-tuple, which is a more concise representation than a rotation matrix. Its geo- metric meaning is also more obvious as the rotation axis and angle can be trivially recovered. What do we mean by tuple? In mathematics, a tuple is a finite ordered list (sequence) of elements. An n-tuple is a sequence (or ordered list) of n elements, where n is a non-negative integer. There is only one 0-tuple, referred to as the empty tuple. An n-tuple is defined inductively using the construction of an ordered pair. In mathematics, a versor is a quaternion of norm one (a unit quaternion). The word is derived from Latin versare = "to turn" with the suffix -or forming a noun from the verb (i.e. versor = "the turner"). It was introduced by William Rowan Hamilton in the context of his quaternion theory. How do you make a quaternion? You can create an N-by-1 quaternion array by specifying an N-by-3 array of Euler angles in radians or degrees. Use the euler syntax to create a scalar quaternion using a 1-by-3 vector of Euler angles in radians. [Biology] Points, conjugate. (Science; Microscopy) The pair of points on the principal axis of a mirror or lens so located that light emitted from either point will be focused at the other. Related points in the object and image are located optically so that one is the image of the other. (See: polarizing element)

[@leaf1131]

LOL@@ready1fire1aim1

[@blackfeatherstill348]

The line where the man with a torch is saying "I seek God", reminds me of Diogenes the cynic, when he walk through streets of Greece saying " I am looking for an honest man".

[@WeltgeistYT]

I think it’s a conscious reference

[@jeffpritchard1592]

"Wissenschaft" includes all thinking that is careful, methodological, and motivated by sincere curiosity. You are absolutely right that it is not limited to STEM subjects.

[@alohm]

Talk about synchronicity: was just watching (your)Schopenhauer vid, for Nietzsche reasons, and came to your home page to find a surprise. I love your takes on Nietzsche. Refreshing and personal, insightful and thought provoking. Like Nietzsche, you seem to prefer to invoke the audience to decide for themselves. Bravo.

[@Danny-qt5vt]

Its called alghoritms! Which may very well be digitalized synchronicity

[@dethkon]

@@Danny-qt5vt On a similar note, I’ve debated with myself as to whether “incorrect” (unintended) autocorrects by our smartphone can be considered as either digital “Freudian Slips” _by the phone,_ or even point towards some kind of digital collective unconscious (granted people have been debating this about the internet for years, so it’s not a new or particularly original thought by me). But as the internet (and AI Chatbots) Continue to evolve in both function and complexity, these questions are going to start becoming much more imminent. We may be on the verge of a new and completely unexpected form of Subjectivity… (but then again, haven’t we always?)

[@CeramicShot]

The scope of this video was very well-conceived. Very good to re-contextualize "God is dead" as well. I think two of the biggest misconceptions regarding Nietzsche are (1) that the "God is dead" passage is gloating rather than deeply perturbed, and (2) that the ubermensch definitely refers to you, the cool misunderstood genius guy that is reading the work. Ironically, wondering "Is the ubermensch describing me?" is possibly the most banal, commonplace thing a person can do while reading Nietzsche.

[@Sobbouka]

My answer to the question of eternal recurrence since first reading it, has always been that whether or not I participate in recurrence, I likely wouldn't know as I live through each instance of life...and not only that, but also, if it's to be a perfect repetition, then am I not being challenged to live my life as fully as possible so that I can die without regret? I'm always so thankful for the timing of my introduction to Nietzsche, as it was when I felt like all the meaning in my life had fallen or faded away. His overall tone of positivity and optimism has been a very soothing thing for me. I always want to say more, but I can't figure out how to express it concisely and it always makes me realize just how much skill it takes to put your own thoughts into text with as much detail as I often have noticed Nietzsche does. Thank you so much for these wonderful Nietzche videos. The context you've given and summaries of the core concepts has been so helpful with parsing and comprehending his works. It's so easy to get overwhelmed between the layered meanings and the influence of modern-views shifting meanings enough that a familiar word becomes archaic.

[@amanofnoreputation2164]

[Nietzsche 's definition of science includes aspects of the humanities.] This explains some mild confusion I'd had reading Nietzsche myself. Very valuable to hear.

[@GhGh-gq8oo]

Everything is a function of matter. Metaphysics aren’t even real. It’s human feelings.

[@user-sl6gn1ss8p]

aren't human/humanistic/social sciences terms normally used in english? (it's an actual question, english is not my first language)

[@Alankerk]

Much underrated channel. Great video as always, they always help me to better understand the complex works of Nietzsche and Schopenhauer! :)

[@WeltgeistYT]

Thank you for the kind words

[@jacobserna2992]

Thanks weltgeist for another amazing video! Love your content!

[@fabiodelayao4072]

I love the tapestry analogy you presented. I really appreciate how you went into the title and defined the different meanings for science back then and now. Thank you 🙏🏿

[@WeltgeistYT]

Thank you!

[@michaelschrute2346]

I hope that your channel keep growing,nice video

[@noself1028]

More synchronicity! I just ordered 5 books by Nietzsche (including this one) and will be reviewing your videos on each before reading. Thanks for the excellent work that went into making this video.

[@WeltgeistYT]

Thank you, and enjoy!

[@extensionsorbit7727]

At about 23:15 you say a video titled "How Nietzsche took on the world" is linked in the description, but it seems you forgot to include the link. Also, I've got to say, I've been enjoying your videos for some time now. Thank you for doing what you do.

[@WeltgeistYT]

Thanks for the kind words, and yes I forgot! I’ll add it

[@TurtlePower718]

This is my favorite of your videos yet. Excellent work 💫

[@WeltgeistYT]

Thank you!

[@armchairgravy8224]

Thank you for covering this book. It's my favorite Nietzsche book as I find it's the pivot point of his thinking. What came before led to this book, what came after was based on ideas in this book. The attitude, the wordplay, and the themes show this is where N learned how to dance with the truth.

[@theletterm5425]

Love all the videos you do on Nietzsche. I‘m thinking about starting to read one of his books soon for the first time!

[@WeltgeistYT]

Good luck

[@theletterm5425]

@@WeltgeistYT Thank you!

[@theceoofcrackcocaineandamp5961]

Did you have a Nietzsche mental breakdown? would be a lot cooler if you did...

[@_kouyou]

Maybe for the ubermensch video you could talk about Raskolnikov from Crime and Punishment

[@adriancioroianu1704]

Very good video as usual on Nietzsche. You're doing amazing job but as you said, it is not a substitute for reading his works. And not just once. It takes time to click. Love you for doing this!

[@WeltgeistYT]

Thanks for watching

[@andrewpaczynski4018]

To answer your question in the video, yes, there are examples of people who have said yes to life in the worst conditions and it happened shortly after Nietzsche died. Read Victor Frankel book on his experience and of being in a Nazi concentration camp and his psychological analysis of those who survived vs those died.

[@matteonunziocappiello8032]

I love all of your video, could you do The birth of tragedy next time pls?

[@WeltgeistYT]

We’re doing everything ;)

[@jmiller1918]

Your work in these videos continues to grow in terms of both clarity of expression and grasp of concept. Really excellent production here.

[@WeltgeistYT]

Thank you for the kind words

[@RapPowah]

Love your channel!

[@Hozagen]

I love your video, well I should say that in plural such great works

[@WeltgeistYT]

Thanks a lot

[@blackhawk5712]

Really appreciate the work you guys do. I was wondering if you have a recommendation for a particular translation to English? The greatest difficulty I've encountered with this book is horribly botched translations.

[@WeltgeistYT]

Hollingdale is probably best. Thanks for the support

[@blackhawk5712]

@@WeltgeistYT Thank you!

[@daaz4459]

Amazing video. Love your work

[@WeltgeistYT]

Thank you very much!

[@hope_pead]

Finally a philosophy channel as a one stop shop for all western philosophy that intrigues me. Really appreciate your analyses of Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, wouldn't have been able to analyze Schopenhauer myself because he is too nihilistic for me to give him a try independently. Much appreciated.

[@unitedtomato5444]

Amazing video as always

[@WeltgeistYT]

Thank you

[@mixerD1-]

Thanks once again WG. 👍👍😊

[@WeltgeistYT]

Thanks for the comment!

[@Ashurus]

Can't wait for the Übermensch video

[@2258nick8522]

Loved the video!

[@WeltgeistYT]

Ty!

[@canisronis2753]

Thank you! Excellent! For the lazy reader type would you recommend something like Kaufmann The Portable Nietzsche? Ive taken up your recommendation of Solomon, Introducing Philosophy and find it quite useful.

[@veerswami7175]

Plz. Give us more detail

[@WeltgeistYT]

Any well-known secondary text is good. I like Hollingdale personally

[@amanofnoreputation2164]

[Nietzsche idealized "light-footedness."] A stark contrast to the boneheaded rhetoric of hollow masculinity Nietzsche is often wheeled out in order to trumped.

[@iwannabethekid34xc]

Being light on your feet is crucial in combat sports like boxing and MMA though lmao

[@SC-zq6cu]

i see a problem with the idea of recurrence: if everything is exactly the same the next time and the next time forever wouldn't my mind and memory be the same as well i.e. won't i experience everything for the first time everytime ? in that case why would i be happy or sad with this prospect ? how is it different than me experiencing life only once ? if i do have all my memories from the previous lives each time won't i be able to improve or degrade my life by making different decisions each time ? in that case won't it be a different life each time ? if each time i only have the idea that i have lived this life before but no memory to prove it won't i just dismiss that idea as meaningless everytime and have a repeat of the first scenario ? in short i think that there can be no reason to be happy or sad with this prospect if the conditions are maintained exactly and the scenario doesn't actually happen if there are reasons to be happy or sad.

[@jgbc2105]

Great video!

[@WeltgeistYT]

Thanks!

[@arcade5765]

very nice

[@MKSKIller]

Thank you for these videos. Nietzsche showed me to craft my own way. To even become better than him. The more I understand myself the more I understand this man and many philosophers before and after Nietzsche . Thanks to nietzsche attacking me and my ideas, my morals, my pessimism. I would eternally thank this man even after I create a thorough enough way to life and surpass even him.

[@lalsenarath]

Surprisingly I can remember even before reading Nietzsche and even reading philosophy, with a divorce, abandonment by mistress, attempt of suicide, having two children, one not caring enough, I quoted in some place, that if I have the chance to live again, I will choose the same path to live! Isn't that what Nietzsche's itaernal recurrence?

[@lalsenarath]

No may be not exactly that, the way I thought is, if I have to live again, the choices IWill make is going to be exactly the same choices as before! So in the end I will live the same life!

[@MvxLifer]

Nice !

[@peaceofmind913]

Thank you. I will most definitely buy this book to read.

[@afanasymarinov2236]

Funny how a channel which is essentially about Schopenhauer and Nietzsche borrows its name from Hegel: Weltgeist.

[@nPr26_50]

The idea of eternity scares me. I think i would reject the offer even if i were to experience merely the good parts of life infinitely. Life and experience is great but i want a deep rest at the end of it. Does that disqualify me from becoming a life affirming ubermensch? Great video as always.

[@Giantcrabz]

I don't know that you can reject the offer outright (I'll have to close read that section again tho), only choose your reaction to having to experience the eternal recurrence as a thought experiment about affirming or resenting unavoidable struggle / pain in life. Very reminiscent of Camus' story of Sisyphus imo

[@satnamo]

Was that life ? I want to say to death. Well then! Once more, my friend!

[@Vice81]

Would you ever do a video on Stirner, someone who is said to have had an unsung influence on the Neetch.

[@WeltgeistYT]

Yes

[@GustavoSilva-ny8jc]

20:21 It all depends if your going to remember or not, if you remember, any life will probably be like your favorite song as an alarm tune. If don't, you will be like Bernard Lowe and say "we had this conversation before...?" If the answer is yes it would be really mind blowing cause every choice you've made were never conscious, even this meeting happened cause it's part of the play. Now i see the resemblance with Berserk, Nier Automata and Westworld. I heard that Nietzsche hated this type of idea cause it makes progress meaningless. It also brings interesting questions, would you be lazy cause everything already happened and events would meet you anyway, no matter what you do? Or will you do your best to live at max while also knowing this is also predetermined? Your own decisions were in big part set by your previous self, you became your god, will you hate yourself? Live anxious about the future and it's lack of possibility? Every past error would be "meh, it was inevitable, i don't need to learn from it'. And most importantly, what if he was lying? What if the belief in this type of destiny creates the destiny itself? It's Cersei and Eren arc, paradoxically they create the very future they fear just by "knowing" about it. This "knowledge" about the future could easily be used to manipulate someone, show patterns and Confirmation Bias and boom, they're on your hands. Like Abagnale said "they only know what you tell them."

[@almawlanietzsche]

the fact that bertrand russel, an english philosopher, found nietzschean philosophy "dispicable" just makes nietzsche's critique of english moral philosophy much more true and hilarious.

[@Giantcrabz]

I mean there are some pretty eyebrow raising passages in Nietzsche, especially later on and when he talks about Jews.

[@gphilipvirgil355]

Excellent. Thank you.

[@OneLine122]

Maybe a better translation might have been "the art of the poet?" There is something to it. Like Aristotle I believe defined poetry as doing something without reason, without meaning, or a goal. In a way, it is doing for it's own sake. The art itself is its own product, it's own goal. Now I suspect what he wanted to convey is making poetry into an art, the art of affirming life. Just like he does not take troubadours randomly. The troubadour basically were taking Christian love and make it into a passion, instead of something of the will. Well, it's not totally true historically, but there is something to it. They kind of meshed both concepts together. So in that view, the troubadour was subverting Christianity, or reverting it to something prior. Funnily today, that transformation is pretty complete, and love is pretty much entirely a passion, in part because the will has disappeared. It's conception itself is gone. People use the word, but it is meaningless, something like the power to choose, which has no meaning. Now about the eternal recurrence, it's something I thought about over the years. It's a fascinating tool which I like. It's certainly something that kind of auto corrects thought. Like In Christianity and most value systems, you basically love things that are devoid of life, devoid of movement and realism. So he puts life first in all it's flaws and imperfections, which is interesting. I think there is some wisdom in this, probably the most fundamental one. Now I would say, I think it's actually what Christianity was teaching at first, but was lost. I mean the life aspect, it was there, but got lost and became secondary to ideas, like faith, obedience and some other things. Hegel had the same problem with history I believe. He thought it had become dead. Another interesting thought, in a way, the best superman would be Jesus himself, not as a God, but as a Man. I suspect it is what he was hinting at, because in the Gospels, Jesus himself tells people that the old laws were dead, because they were not life affirming. One parable that is a bit in that vein is one where the Pharisees ask Jesus if you should save a cow that has fallen in a well on the Sabbath. Now, for it to be godly, you should not do anything on the Sabbath, but Jesus goes against that way of thinking and say to save the cow. He would also often say the laws are a bit irrelevant, they are inscribed in your heart, etc. So he was more about individualism, more about practical wisdom, so art proper, than idealized laws. More of a poet than a philosopher, but philosophers made him into a preacher, someone that would tell people what to do, instead of someone just doing things. He accepted everything too. The sick and the imperfect, the poor and so on. He accepted all the worlds suffering and then died from it. He was doing the Father's will, so God's will, like he was following the plan, even though it was not exactly what he would have wanted. So in that way, he becomes a tragedy, and also an example of the eternal recurrence, because at least on our part, we don't want the story to be any different. People keep reading the same thing over and over, reliving the same thing over and over. But he died and stayed dead, according to N. We killed him, but now it means it is up to us to do the same or kill ourselves out of grief. So I think there is some of that. By bringing up the idea of eternal recurrence, the questions is: do we honor his life, grieve and move on for what we did? or do we die out of culpability? I think what he calls nihilism is the latter. I think he was trying to force people to choose definitively, instead of being pale criminals so to speak. Ghosts. But then I think about Aristotle, and the first principle of ethics, which is to seek the good and avoid the bad. It seems a lot more natural and healthy to me in the end, at least functionally, as a rule of thumb to go around at least voluntarily, but he other one is probably wise for things that are involuntary. It's like Camus' absurd. Sisyphus is punished with eternal return by the gods, and his potential is null. It is an absurd life, but he still has the last possibility, the last laugh if you will, to accept it, to accept his chains. It's the only power left to him, either be the suffering criminal, of the one that affirms his own life, good and bad. And the question is whether one devise his own life in order that it might be possible to do so in the same circumstance. Like are we ready to be like Sisyphus, or Jesus, or any tragic hero? So my answer is that you should, but certainly not look for it. Tragedy is not tragedy if it is not imposed, otherwise it is simply suicide or something, reckless behavior and anti social behavior. And I think it is where people go wrong with N., they take it as some sort of rule of life as if they wanted to get N.'s approval of something, some sort of narcissist supply to N. It's weird and slave mentality, but with the delusion of the opposite. I see the same in people seeking the Imitation of Christ. I tend to tell them it's the last thing you want to do, he died for your sins, not so people would follow him, or do the same. Trying to do the same is not possible, because it is not your role, and trying to do it would rob him of his own excellence so to speak. Sometimes there can only be One. I think it is the same with N. There is only one UberMensch, and he died under terrible circumstances as well. At least we did not do it this time. 😀

[@lisandroge]

Great video. An ubermensch video does sound interesting.

[@andrewpaczynski4018]

I love this channel

[@bernhardriemann6797]

What is the painting at 35:46?

[@Not_that_Brian_Jones]

Okay, I don't understand something. If everything is entwined, if every moment is deeply connected to every other, how do you arrive at a 'new morality' that is in every way distinct and separated from the one that came before? Or, do these new moralists still rely on God for their 'new' system?

[@RobWickline]

really, anyone who wants to read any 19th century philosophy should spend serious time understanding the notion of science and see how it is used in various contexts. when introducing people to the idea, i find either 'systematic knowledge' or a 'systematic practice' to deliver the idea well with some supplementary explanation.

[@WeltgeistYT]

Very true

[@dannyoneill7322]

Please read Walter Kaufmann's translators introduction.

[@OscarCuzzani]

Thank you for another great video. I will pass it to my kids with the hope that they will click on entering Nietsche's thinking.

[@WeltgeistYT]

Wonderful!

[@veerswami7175]

Bro I am bit late lol 😂 but nice to see ur another vid on neitzche

[@WeltgeistYT]

Thanks!

[@VansLegacy]

Will you consider doing any analysis on Jung?

[@WeltgeistYT]

Yes definitely in the future

[@davidowen4816]

Hi Weltgeist, thanks for this first class analysis of "The Gay Science". Have you narrated for Libravox in the past? It was your pronunciation of "Hitherto" that made me ask.

[@calvingrondahl1011]

Art and science? Maybe science fiction plays that part today. Star Trek back in the 1960s was my Joyful Science. 😊

[@JayAmaze]

Given that some believe in the immortality of the soul does one who believes so not internally believe that it would live out all possible human lives in its infinite including oneself over and over and over? Is not asking one the consider the immortality of the soul and the idea of hell or heaven in every possible theology ask just that? I understand it’s simply to understand the man and his work but given what’s given to us by previous philosophers he’s asking the same question posed by all of the giants whose shoulders he stands on I would simply ask the demon what it’s views on its own immortality would be as it would simply be the same as I’ve already accepted this possibly from a young age given my own thinking It’s truly not such an enormous ask in my opinion Aside from that another amazing video!!

[@ZYX84]

I’m bracing myself… What have you got for me today sir🎩?

[@LethalBubbles]

what about "frolicking"?

[@xyzmedia5161]

11:21 Painting name anybody?

[@EyalAvrahamov]

finally

[@C3raMic]

God bless us all

[@canavanian]

I don't remember "The Joyful Science" book from my Nietzsche college course. The GAY Science was a great book though. Is there any relation?

[@Faiz9163]

Same book

[@GustavoSilva-ny8jc]

3:12 WOW

[@troyvdb2830]

I loved it

[@tonybaker2968]

Having recently read The Gay Science, I found the clarfications provided by this video extremely complementary. Thank you Weltgeist!

[@WeltgeistYT]

Thank you, glad it helped!

[@shivangipundhir905]

I'm reading "beyond good and evil" trust me , bit difficult to understand him.

[@adriancioroianu1704]

do the slow read method and think more than actual reading. in that book he is responding to basically all western philosophy up until that moment. one of the hardest philosophy books ever imo.

[@veerswami7175]

Hi if ur reading can we read together bro i missing my old teli friend

[@omegacardboard5834]

Yes, I started with beyond good and evil. Over time as you think, feel and read his other works you will begin to understand what he’s saying. I would definitely recommend reading Genealogy if morals alongside or after it, it is like a supplement to beyond good and evil and expands on some of the ideas later in the book, and is much more understandable

[@Aelorick]

I'd like to watch a dedicated video on the ubermensch ideal

[@WeltgeistYT]

Working on it

[@stefdiazdiaz7067]

Didn't austrian economists probed that value is always subjective? So the value of life is, isn't?

[@leaf1131]

Nietzsche was an existentialist which means doing your own thing as a free and responsible person. Further explained- we, not God, are responsible for purpose and meaning in our lives. Life is meaningless; you must create your own meaning.

[@HelloAlvi]

why should i watch this video? I don't know what this video is about. can anyone help?

[@GustavoSilva-ny8jc]

16:54 What's important to note it's that this seems based entirely on reasoning and the logic that social behaviour is always something teached and that being a "herd" or acting as group is not natural or beneficial to humans, especially the individual. It's comprehensible that Nietzsche though that given his circunstances but in the same way early Economists - no matter how bright they were - were wrong in the predictions, he's wrong in this too. He's unaware of the biological, economical, political and technological aspect of humanity. He focus too much on christian values like their some kind of illuminati and everything has always to be related to them or what they represent. Humans are social animals, globalization improves life for everyone and complete disregard for each other suffering brings people back to State of Nature. But since you're are a small drop against the tie - Niet wrote for few anyway - you'll be okay with being more selfish as long as the system keeps there.

[@Hakor0]

The god is dead thing reminds me of Something I thought about philosophers etc maybe having no use but for the habit (hopefully) of Being open to rational debate at least Like a babbling brook of life continuance

[@doc032848]

How about "A breath of fresh air" as a translation of the title.

[@kabuti2839]

Im announcing the Arrival of the Predicted Ubermensch; yes it Is I!

[@amanofnoreputation2164]

Peterson is the last Englishman to be reckoned with.

[@hhaigh777]

🙏

[@Stormvogel262]

Are you Dutch? You sound Dutch....

[@kys6557]

Yes I can

[@Jabranalibabry]

Uberfans demand a video on the ubermensch

[@HelloAlvi]

hello can anyone please help me to understand the concept!

[@Snaybol]

Just start with simpler philosophical works before jumping into more modern and complex stuff

[@HelloAlvi]

@@Snaybol can you give me a quick example that where should I implement it in real life situation

[@elihyland4781]

“The Gay Humanities” has suuuuch a ring to it

[@jakovvodanovic9165]

comment for algorithm

[@WeltgeistYT]

Much appreciated

[@ultrademice]

i have been doing my first pass on the gay science for the past couple of months, so nice timing for that video! btw I didn't start book 5, as soon as i finished 4 i just got so pumped about Zarathustra that i started TSZ instead and i love it :D

[@billy8291]

I feel like there's this gaping hole in serious philosophy where a "joyful science" should be. Okay, god is dead. We're free. Let's have a beautiful time with each other in this life. We know what this beautiful time looks like. We have movies about it and if we're lucky we get glimpses of it ourselves. But it seems like there's so little good work on how to get to this state. There's plenty of tips and tricks and shallow self help but nothing all that compelling. Idk does this resonate with anyone?

[@tristanhurley9071]

Too many adds. Doubt the great man would approve.

[@samcortez9879]

Is ubermensch abelist?

[@benquinneyiii7941]

Boons

[@nietzsche1749]

I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, and the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough - I call it the one immortal blemish on the human race.

[@brandona1452]

God lives.

[@estebancanizales3303]

:)

[@DreamsEnd8]

Gay Science. It's GAY! GET OVER IT!

[@gourmetchenchen1390]

Bro seriously . Im sorry but every video i see about nietzsche can't do him honor . They are either too " intellectual " or too heavy . 2 things he was heavily against

[@najummushtaq3391]

No worries...I don't expect anything less from a Madonna fan (I am one as well)-:)

[@gourmetchenchen1390]

@@najummushtaq3391 what is the link to this ?

[@elia8544]

What do you mean? Is the content unintelligible?

[@scoon2117]

gay science

[@robertdavis100]

Gay!

[@terraria0graus]

haha gay science

[@tonyrandall3146]

Gay* Science.

[@gourmetchenchen1390]

Gayscience . Please stay authentic

[@GW-gy1my]

both are pretty close to the original german

[@gourmetchenchen1390]

@@GW-gy1my its gaya scienza

[@najummushtaq3391]

@@gourmetchenchen1390 It's Die Fröhliche Wissenschaft, actually---but you didn't watch the video, did you?

[@gourmetchenchen1390]

@@najummushtaq3391 man instead of playing correction heros go read the Book ( or you Can at least read the wikipedia page ) . It has nothing to do with " joyful sciences "

[@najummushtaq3391]

@@gourmetchenchen1390 So how would you translate Die Fröhliche Wissenschaft into English? By the way, no malice or ill-will was intended in my comment. I just thought you had commented without watching the full video because I had exactly the same reaction as yours after the first few minutes.