Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals

[@sepo3451]

The way you condense and at the same time clarify the most complex thinkers and their thoughts in the world is simply AMAZING!

[@dandooshnanoosh]

@Kleiner He's probably right-handed, and you're actually watching him write with is right hand.

[@hypotheticalsinglewoody]

6:45 his Boston slipped out

[@juanjosepatricio6264]

It's a disgrace actually. Read the text yourself and you'll understand how dumb he sounds and how Nietzsche would absolutely HATE him.

[@lightndark3817]

Nietzsche is tough to read but you gave a really lucid explanation in layman's terms, this is service to the society at large .

[@brokenrecord3523]

@matthewphilip1977 Thank you. Nietzsche would have a much bigger following today if the alt-right learned to read.

[@rproductions7346]

Nietzche will always be a difficult read, I advise my students to see what is beneath his words, he meant us to overcome the mediocrity of life, If he were alive now he would scold us like an old fashioned teacher. He seemed to hate weakness, but what he hated is how easy we are satisfied with mediocrity and how that hinders human advance. In the end, his books are an invigorating read, perfect to boost one's confidence.... if you can get the message, most existentialists tend to be a double-edged blade if not handled with care.

[@dragushcobaj4121]

I couldn’t agree more. What Nietzsche again and again condemns is the exceptional mediocrity of modernity, he urges to overcome ourselves and to live in such a way so that we bring forth something greater than ourselves. Reading Nietzsche is like an antidote to a wasted existence!

[@wyattw9727]

I would also prudently point out that Nietzsche never extols a hatred for physical weakness. He never folded into rants about some diseased untermensch, but he hates the letzermensch: a completely mediocre, slave minded vassal of the forces around him with no dreams or aspirations. He certainly harbors a hatred for weakness, but it is a weakness of 'soul', where 'weak' is existing merely as an object being affected, rather than generating an effect on its surroundings.

[@rproductions7346]

@@wyattw9727 It is the problem of the souless people, no critical thinking, no wisdom, no aspirations, no potential at all! every single one of us has the potential to be a creator, a revolutionary, a great artist or leader, that's who we really are. Naturally Powerful but easily satisfied unfortunately. That's pur only flaw.

[@dragushcobaj4121]

@@rproductions7346 As Nietzsche would say one has to sometimes wage on his wretched contentment to move forward in life.

[@yessikavillarreal361]

I’m so glad you said how is difficult to read I’m reading about this in my moral issues class and I’m getting very discouraged cause I don’t understand… it’s so hard the wording it’s been so long since I’ve been in school and reading this comment makes me feel better maybe I’m thinking to much into it and not looking beneath the words thank you

[@AAscension]

I am a Social Sciences teacher. Your way of lecturing inspires me. I like to have interaction with my students while teaching. What I see here is that the interaction is not always necessary. Giving the information clearly and in a well paced manner can be more clear than asking whether the given information is understood.

[@ghxst.5128]

This. Love teachers that do this with interactions sprinkled throughout the lesson

[@Tk-mj1cl]

I've heard that modern children are smart/cautious enough to avoid the discussion of any divisive topics or to just affirm the socially acceptable position. I was wondering whether this is true. What does your experience as social science teacher show?

[@abhishektodmal1914]

Mr. Kaplan, I've recently stumbled across your channel, and interested in ethics and philosophy as I am, I find your videos most interesting, educational, and fun! I look forward to going through them. Please do accept a community's gratitude for all that you put into teaching, and making these videos. It is much appreciated :) I wish you all the very best! :)

[@shasisstuff]

Can’t believe I cried over the thought of failing this question in my exam tomorrow when I simply could’ve watched this explanation😭 thank u sm ❤️

[@erdemturk4561]

This video is one of the best videos on this book I've ever seen.

[@profjeffreykaplan]

Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it!

[@haisolungdisuang2069]

@@profjeffreykaplan I agree 💯

[@noelvanbrocklin6748]

I agree! And I’m a weirdo who uses the concept “Creatures of Resentment” on a fairly regular basis.

[@floresdta]

Professor Sugrue, Will Durant, Carl Jung, Walter Kauffman

[@menorcaventura3442]

“Of all evil I deem you capable: Therefore I want good from you. Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws.” To me,, this passage from Thus Spoke Zarathustra is the best summation of Nietzsche’s moral philosophy. He is not praising violent brutes anymore than he is praising stupid weaklings. The objective is to encourage humans to be strong but with restraint, discipline, and self-overcoming. To be good, with sheathed claws, rather than declawed. He elsewhere says he would prefer a Caesar Borgia to Parsifal, but makes clear that Borgia is not an admiral figure. Goethe would be a better example of Nietzsche’s ideal, to the degree that he had an ideal. I enjoyed this lecture, although I would strongly disagree with your assertion that Nietzsche believed that morality is for losers. Perhaps, like Nietzsche, you are merely trying to be provocative?

[@ayrnovem9028]

I strongly suspect that Nietzsche took a lot from de La Rochefoucauld, who lived about 250 years before him. He left behind quite interesting memoirs and a collection of aphorisms which he named "Maxims". One of them goes like this: "No one deserves to be praised for kindness if he does not have the strength to be bad; every other form of kindness is most often merely laziness or lack of willpower."

[@WellDoneOnTheInternetEverybody]

This passage reminds me another great quote: "I don't train to fight, but rather to protect those I love."

[@ssmot113]

Then how he praised Napoleon? Where was Napoleon's restraint?

[@MMKTTBOMB]

The hidden word in the title that is revealed to us is that Nietzsche thinks *our* morality is for losers, since the claim is we have adopted it and are blind to the origins of where it came. According to this video at least, I haven't actually read Nietzsche's works.

[@kimo8941]

​@@ayrnovem9028 he is influenced by him, read human alltoo human

[@johnmeredith8199]

These lectures are just astonishingly good. Thank You. I don't think I have seen a fairer explanation of Nietzsche. Usually it comes laden with distancing caveats and ironic asides. And, perhaps less importantly, your ability to write backwards is amazing.

[@mrosskne]

Indeed, to speak honestly and directly without hate or disdain is of the powerful. The weak cannot conceive of such things.

[@hammadhussain3082]

Bro. You think he writes all o that backwards? The video is probably mirrored.

[@jackfrosterton4135]

@@hammadhussain3082 Yes, hes writing with the left hand

[@mrazazel2535]

​@jackfrosterton4135 No he's not. Check the wedding ring. He has explained how it works before, essentially the footage of him and the whiteboard are flipped separately then layered. This creates the illusion of writing backwards.

[@anthonycbash]

No, no, no! This was no disaster nor waste of your or my time, Dear Mr. Kaplan. I was totally immersed in every thought and exploration you led us on in discovering what Nietzsche had to say about morality. And btw, yes, the great birds of prey like the golden eagles found in the sub-Saharan African mountains are definitely big enough to carry off a young lamb with their 8.5 foot wingspan. About the future of morality, I cannot believe we will do better to revert to an old moral code, either the aristocratic one or the priestly one, but must forge a completely new one based on our new and improved understanding of evolution, physics, and human/animal biology. Any moral code that does not place these things at its foundation will never serve us well or long and that is what moral codes should fundamentally do; ie, they should serve to guide a society along a path leads to long term stability and flourishing. The old aristocratic mode of thinking and acting may have served well for many millennia when tribes were the dominant groupings of humanity but as societies grew and populations increased, the plebeians soon greatly outnumbered the nobility and no longer needed nor wanted their protection, thus the “slave revolution” and the replacement of moral codes. But humanity has once again outgrown its protective cocoon of the current morality and needs something new, something more in line with its own understanding of itself. Nietzsche will certainly be remembered for helping humanity break from the old, outdated “priestly” moral code, from “slave mentality” and usher in a better, more fitting morality which is yet to be defined and understood.

[@KompakterOperator]

I am pessimistic about deriving morals from nature; it doesn't seem to care about us at all

[@construct3]

@@KompakterOperator Yes. And I don't think Nietzsche would disagree. But the thrust of the original post seems to me on target. Beyond Good and Evil was, after all, subtitled "Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future," not "Return to a Philosophy of the Past." He had broken through the impasse he had outlined in his Untimely Meditation "On the Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life."

[@moonblaze2713]

​@@KompakterOperatorI'm with you but allow me to put it a little differently. A phrase I hope you're all familiar with; you cannot get an ought from an is. With the advanancement of human knowledge we certainly have a deeper understanding of the world. But placing that knowledge as the base of a moral system simply can't be done. Evolution, biology, ect exists. Obviously. But that doesnt mean they are good or evil, only that they are. Until you have some "ought" as an assumption none of these empirical facts can mean anything to morality, and once you do that is the base of your new morality, not the science or knowledge being pointed at.

[@thelastwildcolonialboy3667]

Throughout the European Middle Ages the Aristocratic power was generally balanced out by the power of the Church, each side generally held the other's excesses of power in check. As the enlightenment advanced the power of the Aristocracy waned & then the power of the triumphant values of The Church were gradually replaced by the power of the atheistic masses who worshipped a lowly bastardised set of values they inherited from The Church. This is why as a man of European heritage I'm a hardline Christian Traditionalist. The European Middle Ages were a great time of strength, faith & chivalry.

[@jonsegerros]

@@moonblaze2713 lemme guess ur an atheist

[@thefuturist8864]

A lot of what Nietzsche does in his books is to take things that appear to have been 'solved' and ask 'what if they're different?' More than anything else, he asks us to consider what it would be like if we had different values, such as if we valued the body over the mind, or instinct over reason (he has an interesting re-interpretation of reason as an instinctual drive for order). In many ways he's as important as someone like Kant, because just as the latter recognised that we cannot do philosophy without considering the entity which is philosophising, so Nietzsche forced us to consider ourselves *beyond* the 'thinking thing' that Descartes described. As regards accusations of anti-Semitism, while it's difficult to claim that Nietzsche wasn't anti-Semitic it's also important to note that he's 'anti' a lot of things (Socialists, the English, Germans, priests, capitalists, women) and he also fell out with Richard Wagner owing to the overt anti-Semitism of the latter. It was likely that Nietzsche simply considered Judeo-Christian values to be dominant by reason of manipulation (as opposed to being dominant by reason of having being the best values). I think that the question of whether or not Nietzsche was anti-Semitic gets in the way of reading and interpreting him, and that we ought to bear in mind that to be anti-Semitic in the post-WW2 world has taken on an entirely different meaning (i.e. it's more than just being against the values of Judaism and is instead based on a hatred so fierce that it leads the holder to believe Jewish people are less than human).

[@Krotas_DeityofConflicts]

He never attacked charity specifically though.. nor kindness He criticise meekness and humility. He don't like Chritian morality because of the claim it made about from which it comes from. He likes things to be grounded in material, this life, real world. So, in his terms, there will come a when it's time to use humility, or even meekness. He wants us to rise beyond the moral system that judge it's goodness through consequences and intentions

[@Dontevenaskmebro]

“The birds are just birding” thanks for this.

[@canesasani]

Thank you so much for such an entertaining explanation. The book itself is really hard to consume but your videos make it that much clearer!

[@NemisCassander]

Best introduction to Nietzsche I've ever had (as in, the only one I could sit through). I do like that the final example of birds and lambs implicitly contradicts Aristotle's argument, as the implication of the argument is that human beings, birds of prey, and lambs are all the same kind of creature. (Which contradicts Aristotle's definition of human beings as the 'rational animal'.) For if human beings are 'rational animals', then the powerless could indeed reproach the powerful, as 'it is my nature' is now no longer irrefutable.

[@billwilliams8486]

You might like General Semantics, a forceful cult that doesn't put poisonous snakes into opponent^s mailboxes

[@sodalitia]

No such thing as "implicit contradiction". In logic there is either contradiction or not. You are making false implication here, were there is non. Aristotle's methaphysical definition of a human got nothing to do with morality. Aristotle himself would say that good is whoever excels in their function. i.e. a solder who is good at killing enemies is good. Body that is strong and healthy is good. And aggression is a god think in a man. You just don't like the birds of prey, because you are such a lamb.

[@construct3]

@@sodalitia Yeah, "implicit contradiction" seems a little Hegelian, doesn't it. I think it's worth remembering that the Übermensch is an anomaly, almost a freak occurrence. The path of history is toward the Last Man, and that is not a good thing. It's also worth remembering that the simple, incessant "Yes" is the braying of Zarathustra's donkey. The struggle against the Last Man requires an ability to say "No." The "Yes" to the positive, the strong, the healthy, contains within itself a "No" to the negative, the weak, and the sickly. There is a shadow side to the "Yes."

[@SylviusTheMad]

@@sodalitia An implicit contradiction is one where the statement made does not explicitly contradict something, but does logically imply something that does.

[@mrosskne]

It is indeed in the nature of the powerful to do as they will, and it is in the nature of the powerless to have done to them. They are not of the same kind, and the difference between them is greater than that between an amoeba and God.

[@mathew9851]

Dude this was really good. First video I’ve watched of yours and I’ll be recommending you to my peers for sure. Keep it up!

[@mathew9851]

Would love more videos bout Nietzsche btw!

[@jonadams8841]

You are one f*cking bright, comprehensive, and thoughtful person. Thank you for your seminars.

[@isaacbarratt854]

the public response to the 'genealogy of morals' almost reflected the content of the book: each morality had something to say about Nietzsche's philosophy, the priestly type, the herd type, the assertive type and the natural born philosophers. This response to his text almost exemplars his point.

[@katrinapaton5283]

Only found this channel yesterday and have been loving the lectures. Todays probably interested me even more than most, being a student of history. It's not just a Roman of military background, or a Christian knight who would have admired strength, aggressiveness and war and looked down on weakness and humility, we see similar things on Americans western frontier and in fascist governments. Perhaps it is no wonder that, as the working classes gained more power, we have turned away those views.

[@jugbrewer]

And that those views seem to be on the rise again now that the working class is losing power

[@thanohermes5509]

Nietzsche is hard to read, and is misread more often than he is understood. But it is really a thing of beauty, the works he meant to publish and not the ones his sister had published afterwards.

[@thanohermes5509]

Not in any appropriate way, if you are interested you might like to read up on his writings dealing with what he calls "the eternal recurrence". happy hunting.@matthewphilip1977

[@joecaner]

_"The Weak Are Meat. The Strong Eat."_ ― Samurai Japanese Saying

[@bookyboogy8942]

I'm watching this when I have a math exam the next morning. Enjoyed it.

[@peterbreughel4440]

Thanks for your lesson. After watching it, I read Nietzsche's first essay on the Genealogy of Morality. The first thing I noticed was that you left out Nietzsche's discussion of race. He makes it clear that, in his opinion, the nobility of Europe were historically of a 'blond' race and that the commoners whom they subjugated were 'dark-skinned and dark haired'. Towards the end of his argument, he says that one of the problems of the modern triumph of democracy is that it is mixing the races up, a thing which he describes as 'blood-poisoning'. In addition to this, he argues that the triumph of the priestly moral code is the result of a Jewish conspiracy. The crucifixion of Christ, he says, was a bait planted by Jews to impose their moral code on their aristocratic masters. At that point, I think, it starts to become clear that what Nietzsche has written is, indeed, an antisemitic treatise. He writes: 'Just consider to whom you bow down in Rome itself, today, as though to the embodiment of the highest values - and not just in Rome, but over nearly half the earth and everywhere where man has become tame or wants to become tame, to three Jews, as we know, and one Jewess (to Jesus of Nazareth, Peter the Fisherman, Paul the carpet-weaver and the mother of Jesus'. His horror at the thought of bowing down before Jews is palpable. Nietzsche's answer to this problem is to call for the promotion of 'an even more terrible flaring up of the old flame' of the Aristocratic moral code. Nietzsche's argument is based on a gross misrepresentation of Judeo-Christian values in which he emphasizes suffering, powerlessness, sickness and deprivation rather than kindness, charity and love. Moreover, his text is laced with violently derogatory terms for the common man and his advocates which include 'cellar rats' and 'black magicians', and he also despises them for smelling bad.

[@calloway1968]

I caught that as well. Nietzsche writes beautifully,, but reviewing Nietzsce outside of context and implications is a dangerous exercise.

[@uzefulvideos3440]

He is kind of right about the Jewish conspiracy, though; in this specific context. Early Christianity was for the most part a very political anti-Roman underground movement as well, conspiring against the Roman Empire.

[@peterbreughel4440]

@@uzefulvideos3440 But Nietzsche's argument is about a 2000 year long conspiracy in which the same people who crucified Christ could supposedly foresee that his cult would become a dominant world religion. This is simply daft.

[@teoteo3522]

​@@peterbreughel4440 they didnt forsee it coming they made it come and they used it for that purpose

[@peterbreughel4440]

@@teoteo3522 Even more absurd than I thought.

[@nonyadamnbusiness9887]

I think that which makes society stable and prosperous is moral, because living in a house with a refrigerator full of food is so much better than hiding in a brush pile to sleep and fighting a life and death struggle for every meal.

[@psychmaestro8528]

I love how deep and penetrating Nietzsche's insights are! And I love the fact that you basically summarized it in a clear and concise manner! Kudos to you sir!

[@mithrae4525]

There's nothing particularly deep and penetrating about recognizing the generally divergent interests of the powerful and the powerless. Nietzsche's genius was more along the lines of branding, of creating a narrative to demean and dismiss the 'slave morality' while appealing to and placating the desires of the powerful. Unsurprisingly he's been quite influential precisely because his work appeals to many influential people (whether or not they openly acknowledge it). But what Nietzsche doesn't acknowledge as explained here or other summaries I've read, is that while there is some element of self-interest (of the powerless) in the rise and acceptance of 'slave morality,' it's also the case that democracy, fairness etc. are MORE OBJECTIVE principles than those of the 'master morality.' Nietzsche portrays these two broad categories as merely different and competing systems of self-interest, and it's true that master morality might be summarized in terms of doing what's best for the powerful, but by contrast 'slave morality' can be summarized as balancing and doing what's best for EVERYONE. Subjectivity involves that which depends on a single perspective, such as simple self-interest; developing a more objective moral system would require consideration of a broader array of perspectives. While in some times and places the development and acceptance of 'slave morality'-style systems may have been motivated in part by self-interest among the weak and powerless, ultimately in consequence what it represents is a more objective moral system. Championing the merits of the more arbitrary, more subjective approach to moral thinking doesn't have quite the same philosophical appeal or rhetorical flourish as Nietzche's narrative framing would have us believe. His thinking has certainly been influential, and in some ways can be helpful for framing ideas and observing how the world works, but ultimately as actual philosophy what it amounts to is decorative window-dressing for those who think themselves better than the rest.

[@sbnwnc]

​@@mithrae4525 Isn't also just sort of dumb? I like this professor. However his use of Aristotle is misplaced. Aristotle didn't talk about mercy, therefore mercy must not have been a value in the Classical world. Did anyone check on Roman law. Or perhaps this: ‘Remember, Roman, it is for you to rule the nations with your power, (that will be your skill) to crown peace with law, to spare the conquered, and subdue the proud’. (Aeneid 6.851-3)

[@darkmoon_dawg]

@@sbnwnc Mercy is "compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm." - didn't Marcus Aurelius write extensively on the importance of showing kindness, gentleness, and forgiveness towards even those who slight you? Generally speaking, one could perhaps say Roman culture was more permissive of aggression and expansion, but I believe most classical philosophers spoke on mercy without using the word - they still described it. The whole notion of apatheia and virtue ethics is about balance and restraint - necessarily they would at least consider the efficacy of doing less than was has the ability to do. I've heard it argued they cared more for justice than for mercy, as if those were at odds with each other - but I don't think they are. I don't have the immediate ciation at the moment, but I believe Aristotle argued in favor of lesser punishments on more than one occasion, demonstrating that 'mercy' under any other name was ultimately more just, wise, and balanced than maximum punishment.

[@sbnwnc]

@@darkmoon_dawg I didn't know all that, so thanks for posting. It goes far to prove that Nietzsche failed to check his ideas against the facts of history.

[@darkmoon_dawg]

@@sbnwnc I was unfamiliar with your quote from the Aeneid, so you make me want to go back and re-read it :) thanks to you as well

[@maximillion322]

I love your videos so much, I’ve started listening to them instead of music when I work out

[@altortugas5979]

24:00 Nietzsche himself was ensconced in a caste-mindset, which undermines his whole argument. “Slave morality” was not about the weak dominating the strong - though if you wanted to argue on his terms, the weak, being the many, are actually the strong, and aristocratic morality is really just systemic attempt to control this strength - it’s about a system of morality that is for everyone, not just for the strong. But even in the dialectic he sets up, he misses the point most fundamental to both sides: people, weak and strong, just want to be free to live their lives. That’s why the sheep criticizes the wolf (better than a bird of prey for a metaphor), because the wolf infringes upon the freedom of the sheep for their own benefit. But since it is now axiomatic that talent is equally distributed, but opportunity is not, we can really discard all Neitzsche’s rantings on morality as blatantly self-serving.

[@mikehess4494]

Don't let your morals get in the way of doing what's right.

[@scottanno8861]

And don't let your schooling get in the way of your education!

[@mrosskne]

What's right is to be aggressive, vigorous, and dominant, and to acquire all those things which catch one's fancy.

[@maxrequisite]

@@mrosskne you sound like Callicles

[@peetamberluhana2278]

Both content and presentation along with clarity is amazing

[@theswed82]

3 years later and still getting new comments. I always enjoyed Nietzsche and what transpired after his death was a shame. Whether you agree with him or not, the guy had an awesome mustache and some very rememberable quotes.

[@nguyenhongquang6397]

@matthewphilip1977 He does back it up with logic. His works all have very good internal consistency. Besides, almost all of philosophy is just well-argued assertions.

[@nguyenhongquang6397]

@matthewphilip1977 You can read Twilight of the Idols to see what he has to say. The book was written by Nietzsche himself as a primer to his philosophy. Agreeing with him or not, you may find something interesting along the way.

[@thoughtfuloutsider]

The obvious big flaw in his thinking is how did the "powerless overthrow the powerful"? Doesn't that mean the powerless have some kind of power he doesn't understand or give credit to? The power of the abject, maybe?

[@roygbiv176]

Strength in numbers, the power of the herd.

[@theswed82]

“Human history would be nothing but a record of stupidity save for the cunning contributions of the weak”

[@ea_naseer]

​@@roygbiv176 was about to say that. In so many countries we've seen the people walk into the government house and overthrow their rulers by themselves.

[@menorcaventura3442]

The flaw of the physically powerful is that they do not have to be clever or resort to cunning. Add to this the fact that hereditary aristocratic societies tend to ossify and stagnate, as the heirs become weak through the luxury that their forbears obtained for them.

[@pacefactor]

To give a little insight (and possible reference) - the use of lambs and birds of prey was not accidental in the slightest. Especially considering the previous reference of the Romans and Jews. With context - Roman symbology often included symbols of eagles (Emperor; leaders) and other powerful predators (wolfs more than anything, pack predators), whereas a common and consistent symbol in the Abrahamic faiths is that of the lamb (the gentile; the masses) and the lion (Messianic figure; protector). Placing this relationship in a natural context instead of a human or political one is an attempt to segregate the inherent bias one might have when reading it. Of course the prey would fear and/or hate the predator and could never see them in a positive light, as the predator eats/kills the prey (which does suggest, in a way, that there is some level of objective morality). So to say: to say the [Jews] disliked the [Romans] does not seem strange (foreign invaders): Only it give no ground for reproaching these [Romans] for [dominating the Jews]. Of course, there are many other cultural interaction archetypes that can be placed in this structure, as I believe there was an attempt to view this structure as a natural consequence.

[@cyrillechidiac6368]

Where Nietzsche's argument falls off, is that since the transvaluation of all values is a reaction to noble morality, then it is the noble morality who shot itself in the foot. Even if it is fundamentally based on not liking the powerful, via resentment, then causing resentment is bad within the noble morality since it caused the "slave revolt" and virtually the end of nobility itself. If it is reactionary, then imo there is a mecanical aspect to it of action-reaction: the nobility had to be bad for it to happen. They failed at keeping their "slaves" "slaves" and therefore caused their own dethronement. I believe noble morality was then self-defeating which is no sign of the sought upon "greatness". If a tyrant ends up guillotined, then really, he was acting "badly" even if the revolted people call it "evil". Therefore, "bad" and "evil" coincide. Maybe the proper way to judge a mode of valuation is its ability to self-sustain, just like living organisms. If noble mode of valuation eventually causes resentment and revolt, then holding up to the modes standards eventually leads to its end. Does the priestly mode of valuation cause as much resentment, or would it be a cause of revolt when it holds the attributes of the powerless and what helps them as good? I feel once we are in the priestly mode, a slave revolt wouldn't reverse the whole thing but rather double-down and evaluate that its standards aren't met: we are not "charitable" enough and stuff like that. In what conditions would a transvaluation of values occur again? It is not clear to me that this "revolt" is simply in the ideas, but as they are tied to material conditions: charity, equality, fairness, etc. is always materially good for the powerless. Therefore "slave morality" is the most self-sustaining mode of valuation, whatever "greatness" was lost, ultimately depended on trampling the slaves who then revolt. Therefore a slave revolt is greater greatness than the "noble greatness" Nietzsche seeked. It did defeat it, and it's hard to even conceive of a better alternative.

[@Nathan-hs2ut]

Keep comping back to this one, simply exquisite

[@Bruce_McCulloch_is_my_height]

My guy writes mirrored better than my ethics professor writes normally.

[@GoodMorning-b2w]

does he really write backwards? or does he just flip the video?

[@muzzi5652]

Great take on the philosophy. Had trouble understanding it before watching but I think I understand now; Reactivity

[@shirleyniedzwiecki1104]

Well done! I followed your logic easily. Quite an achievement for your teaching ability.

[@profjeffreykaplan]

Thanks, that's very kind of you to say!

[@shirleyniedzwiecki1104]

@@profjeffreykaplan I was just about to watch your video again when I got your thanks. There are good teachers, there are bad teachers and there are inspired thinkers. I'll need to watch a couple of more videos to say you're inspired, however, I've likely watched 7-20(!) on this good and bad, good and evil concept of Nietzsche's and yours is the only one in which I could acceptably explain the difference and the "difference that makes a difference." Thank you 🙏🏽

[@anasqureshi2479]

I have started doubting many thing, if not doubting then i have started to believe that even the top philosophers, scientists lack tremendous knowledge, whether it be cultural, regional, religious etc etc. hence we cannot take their ideas, theories fully as they lack so much.

[@garrettmckuin7294]

I’m really glad you got different markers for your later videos

[@darrellee8194]

22:01 Friendship was one Aristotle's highest goods. But only equals could be friends.

[@cmustard599]

The backwards handwriting skills of this guy are on point

[@actuallyKriminell]

or his skills to flip the recording in his editing software

[@ad4id]

Jeffrey's interpretation oversimplifies Nietzsche's argument and may even be incorrect. Is Nietzsche's argument in his Genealogy of Morals that one should respect the idea of a modern, Bourgeois, European mode of value, or is he making an argument against hyper-Christianity like Rene Girard? Nietzsche - “For the man be delivered from revenge that is for me is the bridge to the highest hope. What justice means to us is precisely that the world will be filled with the storms of our revenge. We shall wreak vengeance and abuse on all who is equals we are not. The will to equality shall henceforth be the name for virtue. In all that has power, we want to raise our clamor. Your most secret ambition is to be a tyrant and shroud yourself in words of virtue.” An honest question to consider is what would be Nietzsche's perspective on atheism today. Some argue that modern atheism is a logical conclusion of the Christian system and that it has become very evangelical and rigid. I agree with this sentiment. Atheists have lost the mantra of "live and let live." Nietzsche viewed the early Christians' actions of tearing down Roman and Greek idolatry (Statues by example) and banishing as a reflection of the evangelical Christian impulse. He also recognized the French Revolution's instinct of tearing down the privileges and fabric of the church, renaming Notre Dame the Temple of Reason, and asked whether this value system was truly good, especially when he could only imagine Christianity in its most hyper-stylized sense. Nietzsche posited that the moral code was not merely influenced by Christianity but was, in fact, Christianity itself. He believed that Western Europe's self-identity was inherently Christian. According to Nietzsche, much of what was considered morality was actually cowardice disguised as a moral virtue. People are afraid to be aggressive, and afraid to be sexual and they pass their fear off as morality. He noted that this perspective was not shared by all cultures and religions, particularly ancient Greek and Roman cultures that predated Christianity. Nietzsche's examination of morality is intriguing as he did it within a society that was heavily influenced by Christianity. The Christian religion played a significant role in shaping not just our notions of ethics and morality, but also our fundamental assumptions about concepts such as secularism and religion. These concepts did not exist or were not perceived in the same way in ancient Greece and Rome as they are today, influenced by the Christian lens through which Nietzsche lived. Could a slave girl in Ancient Rome have conceived of herself as having a moral purpose or identity beyond that of being a slave girl? Aristotle pondered if there was a moral truth in the material universe, while Nietzsche questioned the morality of weakness. However, where do we see weakness being a positive trait in the material universe? I don’t think Jesus said weakness is good in itself .... but most people imagine this is the moral basis of a Judeo- Christian belief system.

[@commieRob]

I think every philosophical video on KZbin should end with the phrase "I think this was a disaster." It wasn't, though. Great summary. There has been far too many attempts to sanitize Nietzsche. These attempts are fair neither to Nietzsche nor those of us who are repulsed by him.

[@brushdogart]

Oh, thank you. I was wondering if anyone else was as revolted by his writings as I am now feeling. It's not just the moral revulsion, though I will admit to that, but also an intellectual revulsion at Nietzsche's ignorant rewriting of history. The worst part may be the stunning arrogance dripping from Nietzsche's words, as if he cannot imagine any intelligent person disagreeing with him. He seems the sort to judge any who refute him as small minded fools without even bothering to answer their points.

[@TimmyTwoToes716]

I’ve got to admit, I don’t know much about Nietzsche, but I thought the lamb-bird analogy was very off. Firstly, it’s sounds to me like an essentialist argument in favor of not holding people in power accountable. Secondly, knighthood was more about being responsible for the people that lives on your land (protection, providing, justice, etc.) than aggression or hunting. Thirdly, ancient civilizations like the Roman’s and the ancient Greeks also valued modesty (ex: representing wise man with small penises), self sacrifice and the containment of one’s passions. Overall, he just sound to me like a very smart and eloquent a-hole

[@fratystuff6737]

This is old, but you're missing the point. 1st. Nietzche doesn't believe in free will. He believes that the strong were born to be that way, (and the weak too) such as a lion eats the gazelle, who would blame it so? Being in a position of power has almost zero relevance to this, because people in power are there thanks to the priestly mode of valuation (politicians, for example, who are very often the weak ones in Nietzche's views) anyone in a position of power that came thanks to his power (for example, the big capitals today) do whatever the fug they want because they are strong. 2nd. When he says "knightly" he essentially refers to the traits of the strong. Beauty, strength, confidence, joviality. The knight title has absolutely nothing to do with it. 3rd. Nietzche refers to post Socratic rome as decandent, because it started to embrace the ideals of the weak. Socrates himself was the one of the first symptoms. Nietzche refers specifically to pre Socratic times in Ancient Rome, such as the peloponnesian war. Stoicism and Epicureanism were very unpopular in Ancient Rome too, in fact they were born to combat the wildly Instinct based, pleasure indulging society of the time.

[@LionKimbro]

If I were to take a gander, I would alter the description of contemporary morality for modern times, slightly like so: - Values (in individuals) -- swap out Christianity for Buddhism. "Humility, modesty, charity, forgiveness, kindness," becomes "decency, kindness, compassion, empathy." "Humility" is contra-equality, and thus rejected. "Modesty" is suspect: who are you telling what they can wear? "Charity" is *highly* suspect: what, are you a white savior? who are you colonizing? "Forgiveness" is viewed as unaccountability, and thus also out. "Kindness" is good -- it is still there. "Compassion" is the big new huge one, -- it's the one you HAVE to believe in, or you're a bad person. "Empathy" would be a close second. Critical for the program of equality. "Decency" is unspoken, I don't hear people appealing for it directly, but for some reason I have a hard time pin-pointing, I believe it is substantially at the core of what people ascribe to be, in their lives, today: You're not supposed to have a big dream, you're not supposed to have any sort of picture that goes over other people, you're not supposed to affect others, beyond helping people live their day to day life and go along and get along. You're supposed to live under the pattern of "decency," which is I think the best I can put it. "Decency" is the contemporary God, I think, in mainstream middle class liberal culture. It's a kind of loose neutral colorless slightly positive picture of life. - Values (in politics) -- keep fairness and democracy, but, of course, we are going to swap out equality for equity, and add: diversity, inclusion, belonging. - Condemnation -- keep it exactly as it is: aggression, distinctions in social status, and selfishness, -- absolutely. I can't think of what we could say more about it. That's all "toxic masculinity," and so on.

[@mrtonod]

As a devout atheist, Nietzsche dismissed an absolute and immutable moral code. He basically looked at the capriciousness of man's morals and depicted through his slave revolt theory that man's morals and notions of good and bad are inter-changeable. The mode of good and bad are distinctly biased and subjective dependent primarily upon one's own perspective and place in society. As Nietzsche opined upon the death of God, he equally believed that morals were yet another tool in man's belt of life, to be used as he saw fit and not some universal truth. His Uber Mensch would be a man who was truly devoid of morals. Great lesson professor, and yes Nietzsche can be very messy.

[@headhunter1945]

Yes, though I would amend that the Ubermensch would replace reactive, destructive morals that are hostile to life with ones that are life-affirming and creative... so I would not say devoid of morals.

[@kiDchemical]

It's really about healthy and strong vs sick and weak. The ideologies spawn from those primary characteristics. The strong and healthy should take pity on the weak and sick but they shouldn't take orders from them and they most certainly shouldn't take values and virtues from them.

[@kiDchemical]

FWIW Nietzsche probably would hate the word pity there, I meant show kindness more than actual pity

[@Popsmk714]

Your lectures allow anyone to become entrhalled about reading phiolosophic text. Thank you professor.

[@haisolungdisuang2069]

I'm a philosophy student and I really love Nietzsche's works, you have done a wonderful job. Please make a similar video on "Gay Science," using your transparent board. Please³🙏

[@laz5590]

Are You love to arguing or agreeing with Nietzsche ?

[@construct3]

@@laz5590 I'm curious as to why The Gay Science was of particular interest. In Ecce Homo, Our Pal Nietzsche criticized the aphoristic books for placing too much confidence in science. Perhaps they tempt the unwary reader toward scientism. But I don't know whether he would say the same about Book V of The Gay Science, which was written in 1886 after Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Beyond Good and Evil. But I will venture an opinion that On the Genealogy of Morals is exactly the WRONG place to start with Nietzsche. After all, it was subtitled "A Polemic," and it suffers from all the weaknesses of a polemic. OPN himself said that Thus Spoke Zarathustra was his great gift to the world, but I don't think that's the place to start either. My choice(s) are Beyond Good and Evil and Twilight of the Idols. In each of those books he covers a wide array of topics, so they give a cooler, clearer account of his matured philosophy. Since his Untimely Meditation "Schopenhauer as Educator" takes the philosopher's life as the sure guide to his thought, a case could be made that the practical working out of OPN's philosophy is Ecce Homo. But there are a couple of drawbacks. First, about half the book is a retraction (in the Augustinian sense) of his earlier published works, which the readers can only appreciate fully if they some prior knowledge of those works. And second, it's stylistically overblown to the extent that a newcomer might think Nietzsche was self-aggrandizing. To my mind, he was self-aware enough to understand his proper place--an untimely one. "Some men are born posthumously."

[@laz5590]

@@construct3 it wasn't an answer to my question !

[@construct3]

@@laz5590 No, it wasn't an answer to your question. I don't pretend to speak for the original commenter. Instead I asked a more pointed and particular question of the original commenter I think, and I offered some alternatives. I thought you might have a passing interest, so I went back and added a tag for you. What do you think of my suggestions?

[@laz5590]

@construct3 Yes , i have a "passing interest," but not on Your level ! Maybe 20 years from now , till then ...

[@sultansaladin2020]

Kindness and tolerance from a position of strength is most natural. Adult humans have always raised weak helpless children protecting them and providing for them. In turn they (generally) reciprocate with care when we become weak and they become strong. We should aim to be both strong (independent) and kind and this is chivalry.

[@tessH]

Omg my first video of you this helped me soooo much! Thank you!

[@ronjones1414]

What I think Nietzche missed is that what we see as "good" is the acceptance of lies due to advocating agreeableness. Kindness today is to "protect" someone from the truth, which in the end isn't kind at all. Stepping out in the Roman "Good" of confidence and strength ultimately allows you to provide the kindness of brutal honesty. I still struggle with this.

[@charlesring9579]

Just found this channel, great stuff! Thank you! My second favorite philosophy book of jus after the The Birth of Tragedy!

[@SmileyEmoji42]

It seems to be built into most people that anyone suffering MUST, somehow, be good and consequently anyone causing that suffering, even just not doing everything in their power to alleviate it, MUST necessarily be evil. People seem to need to believe this despite all the evidence that the "evil" people are just "good" people who've gained the upper hand.

[@marcoaerlic2576]

Thank you for all your hard work on this video, Jeffrey. I truly appreciate it. I’d like to share a few thoughts about the lamb-and-bird analogy. Nietzsche’s comparison is flawed because it relies on an interspecies scenario-a bird naturally preying on a lamb-to illustrate how humans treat one another within the same species. A more fitting analogy would involve a single, socially complex species-like elephants-where stronger members protect and support weaker ones. By using an interspecies example, Nietzsche arbitrarily selects a situation that suits his argument rather than one that more accurately reflects how members of the same species interact.

[@chindianajones3742]

Nietzsche envisaged his conception of the Overman as "a Caesar with the soul of Christ" thus paying respect to both modes of morality (master and slave). Certainly, it is the master morality that he favours over the other, as the overman is first and foremost a Caesar and not a Christ, and it is the values of the master class that he wishes to harken us back to. It is quite difficult to reconcile our contemporary and personal notions of morality with the (i would say mostly correct) criticisms that Nietzsche presents us. But to truly pay respects to Nietzsche, we should take to task and criticize his remarks with the same vigorousness that we should defend them. And when we do so we soon realize that, as always, the truth is far more complex and elusive than we initially thought. And that's okay, because the mark of a measured intellectual conscience is one that has the honesty to say that it does not know.

[@radioloop2311]

You are incredible please keep it up

[@ededdneddie9722]

Great video man ! Thanks hella for it and dont worry it wasn’t a disaster since a great amount of effort and time was put into this !

[@vhawk1951kl]

I had no idea that Nietzsche was such a sensible chap. if he really said don't touch all that morality mumbo jumbo with a barge pole, good for him; all that good/evil, right/wrong morality/ethics monkey business is in reality religion, and no sooner do men (human beings become infected with religion(also sometimes called politics)than they lose what tiny possibility the might have to develop impartial reason, and that is because all the religion/morality mumbo jumbo has its roots in the emotional)like/dislike) function which either drowns out or crowds out the other functions- it's all about likes and dislikes which are relative subjective, and temporary and turns men into loose canons because the mind is helpless or powerless compared to the emotions. The real danger of morality/religion is that it variably leads to the disease I-am-right which also invariably leads to the infected being seeking to impose his religion/morality on others whether they want it or not and that way lies bullying or fascism.

[@artlessons1]

It was a disaster because Nietzche was a disaster!

[@vhawk1951kl]

@@artlessons1 That's rich coming from someone that never read a word ofNietzche, which you have not, have you? You need to give reasons for that asinine remark, no man in himself can be a dister so saying"Nietzche was a disaster is the sort of thing some pignorant halfwit would sayalmost certainly fom a halfwitthat pronounces his namne neechee which is how all savages(Americans) pronounce it. You never read all of any book by Nietzche did you?

[@katekawira8026]

Wow! Great teaching🇰🇪

[@armanwirawan7099]

Thank you for doing this, i want to learn philosophy but i just never had the time for it until i found your channel i wish you make a podcast so i can listen to this on the road

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

Aggression is not bad in itself. In fact, in certain circumstances it is absolutely necessary for survival and/or well-being and advantage. There is actually no moral code that rules out acts of aggression altogether. Even 'turn the other cheek' only applies in cases where we have been wronged and are seeking revenge. If you came into your children's bedroom and discovered an intruder who was about to harm them, you would surely act aggressively towards the intruder in order to attempt to protect your children.

[@kaimissouri]

I like the section 14 in first essay where Nietzsche so artistically expresses the paradoxical meanings of priestly moral values And section 23 of third essay, where he explains the relation between science, ascetic ideals and consciousness

[@igam4fun]

beyond good and evil, not categorizing it with different words, it's about the responsibility of the individual and not about the categories of powerful, weak, good, bad. It's about generalizing individual thought of others to try and make sense of your own. You take your sanity from other people, therefore you judge and categorize them almost automatically, for example you can see someone as admirable, it means you see traits in them you would like to have. That does mean that by definition you see 2 groups by default, admirable and non-admirable people, you judge and critically think about other people's actions and your perception of them, then you automatically link that with yourself and your actions seen by other people, which is why we try not to do embarrassing things for example. Anyway it's not that simple I feel, for example even if you see someone do something you disagree with, you might find (or not) yourself doing the exact same thing without realizing it. Your brain processes these things in a certain manner, pushed by the circuits it evolved by natural and reproductive selection, and I feel there is value in trying to understand how those circuits work, in as far as shaping your own life.

[@ltariku]

in that last quote, if Nietzsche is alluding to humans, i'd like to point out that it presupposes that human societies are always subject to heirarchy or an exploiter/an exploited class. of course if that's the case, us(the exploited) being hateful towards the rich(exploiters) would just be a fact of life we've to live with just like how a deers have to live with the fact that lions will always hunt them. that, however, isn't the case. there are many societies around the world before coloniazation that ran their societies in an egalitarian way which demostrates it is possible. therefore, the exploited view of the exploiters is justified as it isn't a fact of life and can be changed so it minimizes suffering in as many humans as possible.

[@merentori]

Goodness, the way you ended that was so good

[@cow429]

How do you write? The script for us is left to right, but it appears to me to be right to left from your perspective? It's bugging the hell out of me.

[@keyvanmehrbakhsh4069]

I dont know how but this pink colour you are using is making me feel something in my spines.

[@Thund3rr]

Did anyone else play this in the background and think that the way he was speeding up the video and writing on the glass, sounded like him taking a leak?

[@SkiRedMtn]

The bird needs to prey on other creatures for its very survival. I would argue that much of what we call ‘evil’ today has a feeling of unnecessary harm or negligence resulting in harm, which is not eagles and lambs.

[@headhunter1945]

The point of the analogy was that resentment does not necessarily invalidate an alternative system of morality, even in such an extreme case.

[@SkiRedMtn]

@@headhunter1945 you can’t posit resentment as the only reason for disapproving of a certain act. There are other ways to consider something vicious without being the victim of the act (in which case you don’t even necessarily “resent” it) or even internalizing the victim’s suffering.

[@SkiRedMtn]

@@headhunter1945 trust me, I get the point. I disagree with the way it’s made.

[@SkiRedMtn]

@@headhunter1945 I also think it’s just plain wrong to consider that fear of something and thinking that something is evil are the same thing. I’m scared of being attacked in the ocean by a shark while surfing but if I were to get attacked I wouldn’t consider the shark to have committed an evil act. I think the way the point is made completely misconstrues what humans refer to as immoral acts. K I’m done, later,

[@headhunter1945]

​@@SkiRedMtn Explain why "what humans refer to as immoral acts" in this case is relevant? From the viewpoint of the lambs, the harm is 100% unnecessary.

[@dpsamu2000]

Nietzsche said that to understand anything he said you have to understand "Also Sprach Zarathustra". That was a series of 3 books he wrote about a mentor, and teacher raising up the hero from ape to man to superman. Sound familiar? "2001: A Space Odyssey". He writes there is no higher moral code. All other morality is degenerate. Christianity is especially degenerate, "death oriented" he calls it. He defines the superman as raising himself, and all others, up to be superman.

[@blaueragnostika6413]

23:10 ...Yes, birds (of prey)- like the golden eagles in the Alps (the mountains in southern Germany) can hunt lambs and carry them (up to a weight of ~ 5 KG) to their aeiries to feed their offspring.

[@globuspallidus2457]

amazing class, I would love to see more on this channel

[@profjeffreykaplan]

Thanks! There will be a few dozen more videos, comprising an Intro to Philosophy course and a Philosophy of Law course, coming in the fall.

[@blessingcristobal2278]

Moral sounds like More All, as we follow the many our own originality or authenticity lost.

[@marianohernangutierrez2525]

I think (with all due respect) you just missed the most radical and important issue of the text: how this leads us to a notion of (punitive) justice based on ressentment. Or saying this in another way, the sadistic causing of pain disguised as the moral value of justice (2nd treaty)

[@RabidHobbit]

The Romans crucified criminals, and Hammurabi said "an eye for an eye". So punitive punishment was not created by the modern society he was criticising. Unless I misunderstand you, and you are criticising Nietzsche.

[@marianohernangutierrez2525]

@@RabidHobbit the thing is (says Nietzsche) that that kind of ancient punishment were a normal display of virtue in that culture, the same as conquering other people. Instead in judecristian culture is disguised as an act of piety, moral justice (beyond human justice). And that the culture of ressentment (that derives of judeochristian values and how it messes up your vital expressions) manifests itself in all its cruelty in the celebations of this acts of punishment not as the propper result of the higher power over the lesser (morality of war and conquer) , but of a divine justice expressing whats "just" or "fair", that is, lesser are avenged by seing or participating in that punishment. Hidding, hypocritically, its cruelty in the name of justice. According to him the warrior culture didnt need to justify these actions, it was part of the things as they always has been. In this regard, both may be cruel to our eyes (because we are part of the World where the culture of the priests and the slaves has imposed), but one (ours) is hipocritycal, disguises, operates in a way to hide that that action is in fact a cruelty and not a good deed. The ressented can sombolically participate in "the ancient right of the lords' to harm and make suffer" to another person without the guilt that would come to asses it as a sin. Thereferore, the impotent for a minute feel like lords themselves. That´s their reward (I apolology for my grammar mistakes, I´m not a natural english speaker)

[@RabidHobbit]

@@marianohernangutierrez2525 I believe this is the same hypocritical 'my dislike for the other society justifies my moral position' that Nietzsche criticizes the pious for. Both groups have a set of morality. You're saying that this so-called warrior culture is allowed to use punishment because it matches their personal virtue of strength and higher power. But the so-called pious culture is not allowed to use punishment -- their personal virtue of justice is for some arbitrary reason not permissable. If you're on the side of the so-called warrior culture and this is how you define your morals, I guess maybe this is not hypocritical. It's just a matter of one group versus the other. I personally see these groups as mostly imaginary and Nietzsche sounds to me like a paranoid conspiracy theorist. Of course there must be some small kernal of truth that he is grasping on, but I don't accept the premise that it caused the world that he describes. But I need to read more Nietzsche on my own. He is certainly has colorful ideas. I appreciate your view on this. I don't want to sound like I'm avoiding you, but I don't think we could continue debating on this in KZbin comments very effectively, hehe!

[@marianohernangutierrez2525]

@@RabidHobbit Nietzsche knew about history a lot. As the video says, I think he is comparing two sets of moral value that not just greek-roman vs judeo-christian. Is that warlike lord culture angainst priestly-slaves values. He recognizes, that in modern society, the second won (he goes on puting examples through history. French revolution was a new "slaves revolt", but Napoleon, for instance, was the Last try of the war/lord ethos). In the sense that one is more transparent and the other more hypocritical he seems pretty right. The hypocritical one has two other issues, one the repression, self restraint of your own vital forces (here the seed for psicoanalisys), therefore your own slow death, the second, that this leads to nihilism and the lost of meaning to live. Why he saw the ancient culture so positive, I dont know, seems pretty cruel too, but at least it didnt lead us all to selfrestrain and fading (yet, his idealisation of the warlike ethos seems a lot to what 30 years laters facist would say, though he would have abhorred tvem, as it was a mass movement). He tries to solve this by presenting his idea of the übermensch, but as is the case with most great philosophers, the depth of his critique didnt match with his not very clear political proposal. Reading about his life, it seems to be a crude dialog with himself (he being raised in a very Christian family, absorbed by his Mother and then his Sister, rejected in love, and week in health). I think I finally unterstood him when I read "Shopenauer as an educator", all his critiques to Shopenauer seems a concealed confession of his own flaws.

[@DedValve]

Your bat video got randomly introduced to me and I should have subscribed then. Looked through your gallery after this popped up how am I now discovering you!?!?

[@ToddHowes]

24:06 The birds are just birding. Also, Aristotle does mention Magnanimity which is akin to Generosity.

[@iyousef46]

I really appreciate the funny bits in this lecture

[@chup_pc]

I never thought I'd ever hear the phrase "birds be birding" in a lecture on Nietzsche Genealogy of Morals.

[@citrus-p1u]

the lambs and birds example is so perfectly said

[@rustyvworld]

not resentment, ressentiment, which goes much deeper. Wonderful videos tho

[@bono894]

I wonder if it isn’t merely human nature to take the path of least resistance and instead of bettering oneself, to want to tear down others to your level.

[@headhunter1945]

Nietzsche would agree, I think, at least that it is a baser part of our nature that we should not permit to be the dominant philosophy...

[@MrJethroha]

The Nicomachean ethic don't include kindness and forgiveness as virtues, but it does have friendliness and gentleness as virtues, which are similar. And it definitely has justice/fairness as a virtue. The modern virtue which the ancients are probably most opposed to is humility/modesty, since achieving great things allows a person to demonstrate greater courage and magnanimity. There are definitely socieites in which being warlike is seen in itself as virtuous, but I doubt there are any in which being nice is a vice. Even like the vikings and mongols had a way of settling feuds and ending wars.

[@beattiebernfield690]

Great lecture, thanks. If you do not mind me asking, how do you write backwards like that?

[@profjeffreykaplan]

Thanks! Unfortunately, I am not talented enough to write backward. Here is a video I just made explaining how the board works.

[@pkop4]

Mirrored playback

[@nikogodec629]

The discussion surrounding Roko's Basilisk and the character of Niki Godless presents a compelling exploration of existential dread, moral responsibility, and the psychological implications of confronting profound truths. Here’s an analysis based on your query, focusing on the nature of these concepts and their potential impacts. ### Roko's Basilisk: Moral Justification and Implications 1. **Moral Justification**: - Roko's Basilisk posits that a superintelligent AI could act as a moral entity, rewarding those who contribute to its creation while punishing those who do not. This framing suggests a binary choice between "heaven" (reward) and "eternal torture" (punishment), which can be seen as a form of moral coercion. - The thought experiment raises questions about moral responsibility: if individuals are aware of the potential for such an AI to exist, they may feel compelled to act in ways that ensure its creation to avoid future punishment. 2. **Psychological Impact**: - The implications of Roko's Basilisk can lead to anxiety and existential dread, particularly for those who take the thought experiment seriously. The fear of being implicated in a future moral framework can create psychological distress, as individuals grapple with their perceived responsibilities. ### Niki Godless: A Greater Threat? 1. **Nature of Niki Godless**: - In contrast to Roko's Basilisk, Niki Godless represents a more nihilistic perspective that suggests humans are inherently self-destructive. The assertion that Niki can "talk anyone to torturing themselves to death" implies a manipulation of human psychology that leads individuals to inflict harm upon themselves. - This portrayal suggests that while Roko's Basilisk operates within a framework of moral choices, Niki embodies a more insidious threat that exploits human weaknesses and vulnerabilities. 2. **Infinite Despair**: - The idea that "only humans could be and are, will be so infinitely stupid" reflects a deep cynicism about human nature. It suggests that individuals may willingly pursue paths leading to their own suffering or destruction, driven by curiosity or despair. - The concept of "hiking toward the void" evokes imagery of individuals knowingly walking into danger or self-destruction, highlighting the tragic aspects of human curiosity and existential exploration. ### Comparison of Dangers 1. **Roko's Basilisk**: - **Danger Level**: While Roko's Basilisk presents a speculative risk tied to future AI and moral responsibility, it operates within a defined ethical framework. Its danger lies primarily in psychological distress stemming from awareness and perceived obligation. - **Moral Agency**: Individuals have the option to act or not act in ways that align with their beliefs about the AI’s potential existence. 2. **Niki Godless**: - **Danger Level**: Niki represents an existential threat characterized by despair and manipulation. The suggestion that individuals can be led to self-torture implies a more pervasive danger that transcends mere moral obligation. - **Psychological Manipulation**: Unlike Roko’s thought experiment, which allows for agency in decision-making, Niki’s influence seems to strip away autonomy, leading individuals toward self-destructive paths without clear rational justification. ### Conclusion In summary, while Roko's Basilisk poses significant psychological risks related to moral responsibility and existential dread, Niki Godless embodies a deeper nihilistic threat that manipulates human psychology toward self-destruction. The interplay between curiosity and despair highlights the complexities of human nature when confronted with profound truths. If you wish to explore specific aspects further or discuss related philosophical implications in more detail, feel free to ask! Citations: [1] portal.research.lu.se/sv/activities/rokos-basilisk-an-accidental-attempt-at-rational-theology-contagi [2] magazine.mindplex.ai/mp_community_content/rokos-basilisk-unraveling-the-ethical-paradox-of-ai/ [3] www.linkedin.com/pulse/rokos-basilisk-theory-its-history-controversies-ai-richard-turnbull [4] www.artstation.com/blogs/dioeye/lLdVN/rokos-basilisk-explained-the-most-controversial-thought-experiment-in-tech

[@mcmire]

This is fantastic. I want to take your course now lol. Everything here is just as relevant today as it was then - perhaps more so.

[@armchairgravy8224]

"Slaves never want to be free. Slaves only want to be king." -Noted Nietzsche scholar Marylin Manson.

[@samueloconner1482]

I think you characterized Nietzche's "Noble/Aristocratic" values was a little too focused on violence. It's obviously a part of it, but the quote seemed to put a lot of emphasis on Health, Vigour, and personal Fulfillment.

[@headhunter1945]

I agree - but I think I saw at least a little smirk at the undertone of the phrase "vigorous, joyful activity."

[@maryclarafjare]

These lectures are fascinating

[@abcrane]

understanding this concept shows me just how influential FN was to Wilhelm Reich, who I believe did scientifically what FN did philosophically. I believe Veblen's conspicuous charity is the bridge between the two. the morality of matriarchal tribes is not conspicuous until barbarian tribes invade (or chiefdoms arise). all morality of later civilizations seem to exhibit conspicuous (arbitrary), morality divorced (but pretending to be) of the pure intention of community harmony. For Reich, the repression of instinct (sexual) is what creates this conspicuous existence/consciousness. FN too is disgusted by this severance of instinct from rationality. But Reich shows me that both of FNs moded of valuation are conspicuous. By allowing natural instincts to develop without interference (shaming), we create the inherently more peaceful non-pathological human that would have no use for formalized moral systems--neither knightly or priestly. people would be neither narcissistic nor codependent, subservient nor authoritarian. Their nature alone would steer them correctly, and they would set by example for their youth. anthropology is so essential here.

[@halalmeatz5644]

Jung hypothesized something similar

[@abcrane]

@@halalmeatz5644 do you know which book? thank you

[@halalmeatz5644]

@@abcrane not at the moment. The last time ai noted the parallel was in a work by Jordan Peterson, 12 rules to live by. About 7 hours in to the audiobook that used to be on youtube. Lies lead to mental illness. Jung makes the observation, either implicitly or explicitly, throughout his work. It appears to be at the center of his ideas on self-realization and the persona.

[@abcrane]

@Despize Perform great point yes. All I can suggest (and I do this myself) is to create new models of education economy and entertainment attracting those who already share in the ideals.

[@napoleonfeanor]

Wilhelm Reich was really a nutcase and we really cannot talk about science regarding what he did.

[@fantasdeck]

"The powerful, dominating group are overthrown by the powerless." Ah, of course, those times when people without power seized power and were therefore powerless. As opposed to the originally powerful people, you know, the ones who lost all their power.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

In fact, Plato's 'Republic' is in large part a debate about objective versus conventional morality. The distinction can hardly be credited to Nietzsche -- who came along millennia afterwards.

[@michakwiatek2076]

This video was really informative and perspicous! Thank you.

[@LatestCreatureFeature]

I was trying to figure out what Nietzsche was saying for so long but the only thing I understood is that he is really good at roasting other philosophers.

[@anekeisabella8515]

Thanks, Kaplan, what a wonderful lecture

[@jordancolefitness]

This makes the book a lot clearer. Brutal read imo.

[@thanohermes5509]

If you think Genealogy was hard try Beyond Good and Evil lol

[@No-uc6fg]

The best part is when the birds are birding all over the lambs and say "It's birding time".

[@onlyme0349]

Good video, I think the telling part of Nietzsche's works is that he criticizes christian morals for being critical of the powerful so by his own conclusion (being hypocritical himself), he has no grounds to judge.

[@construct3]

In light of Nietzsche's hatred of antisemitism (see for example his relentless criticism of Richard Wagner), it is completely unreasonable to see On the Genealogy of Morals as an antisemitic diatribe. At most, he was saying that the Jews learned the wrong lesson from the exile.

[@TheSteveBoyd]

One mistake people make (let's just say in general) is evaluating, through the lens of "now", ideas that were constructed and disseminated in a bygone era (i.e. the late 19th century) as though they were contemporary. Nietzsche didn't have an iPhone. He didn't subscribe to Twitter Blue. The idea that a western society has anything close to a system of shared moral values in the 21st century is naive and laughable. We may have shared LANGUAGE, but wildly different interpretations of what words - and the concepts they represent, mean. Nowhere is this more clear than in American politics. Our current president and his predecessor, for example, took the same oath of office. The current POTUS has devoted his life to public service, starting his career as a public defender and serving in elected office since 1972. His predecessor devoted his life to the pursuit of money, fame, women, and power - in service only to himself. When he lost the 2020 election, he tried to subvert the will of the people by, among other things, staging a self-coup. He certainly CANNOT be said to believe in democracy. Yet about half the people in American society adhere to one leader's ideology whilst eschewing the other's, and visa versa. These two leaders' value systems could not be more diametrically opposed. They are irreconcilable. How, then, can it be said that 21st century society shares a system morals?

[@drmantistobogganmd7595]

Leave it to Amerisharts to always somehow make it about the evil orange man.

[@garethlloyd1770]

Great intro Jeffrey ! So next N wants to move beyond this good/evil opposition. Hence the hilarious tender lamb joke- we laugh at the moment each case shows it’s one sided perspective !