Nietzsche's Radical view on Aristocracy and Ancient Greece

Friedrich Nietzsche, like many famous philosophers, thought democracy led to decadence, confusion, and mediocrity. He believed hero-morality and his Ubermensche or overman could only arise in an Aristocratic society where the master morality prevailed. What did the ancient Greeks believe? How did the old aristocracies come to be and why did they produce higher men and high culture?
🌟 Get my Book on Amazon! a.co/d/dUgTQFi
"Why should life be worth living when all the heroic values in it have been permitted to decay, and democracy-that is, disbelief in all great men-ruins, with every decade, another people?" - Will Durant speaking on the Hero-Morality of Nietzsche
Talk to me 1-on-1 - Apply for a free discovery call:
kristianbell.com/coaching-apply

[@ideologybot4592]

Around 4:44 this went off the rails. You can't separate the higher forms of people from having the capacity to control the lower. The selection method has been based on the ability to handle complexity and abstraction, as in narrative religion and the creation of moral regulatory ideas and subservient social roles. They developed systems that concentrated resources toward the expansion and agency of their system, and thus, to themselves. Nietzsche didn't mince words about this: they were selfish. Their greatness was forged in a crucible of competitiveness and their unequal ranks - always under pressure from below, from those who wanted their power - were a demonstration and a goal, all at once. You separate the ideals from their purpose, and turn it into a set of airy virtues that all can share. Why? You say you understand the inequality aspect of it, but I'm not seeing it. The control over others was the point, that they could manipulate and coerce the will of others and thus use humanity to change the world how they saw fit. Nature was fairly easy to bring to heed, and has been since the dawn of agriculture, ultimately developing into what we have now. They just needed manpower. For that, you needed control over your social environment, which was established institutionally. When you control other people, dictating their behavior, you can create a system that handles your minor problems for you, freeing your attention to more important things. We do that with economic and cultural incentives now, but control is control. Great people didn't get into war because it gave them pleasure, or at least not for that reason alone: they got into war because it expanded their power over others. That's why violence was valuable. That's the point. Lesser people, otherwise vulnerable and useless, can then be molded into something of value. Why would people pursue the higher virtues when there is no greater power over other people to be had from embodying them? There's an entire dimension to Nietzsche, and maybe to social philosophy in general, that I think you're missing. The purpose and identity of an overclass has always been systematic, and the understanding of how and why the aristocratic values developed can't be understood without understanding its relationship to social control. They came to embody something because that's what they needed to do to respond to their social environment, to give them power over it. It's the ultimate in evolution. All this about breeding, defining the "strongest bloodlines", comes out of that need for the strength to control. I think this needs to be understood before you push on with the project you're starting here. I agree with a lot of it, but I think you like it because you aesthetically like the aristocratic ideals, not because you understand why aristocracy exists on a deeper, developmental level. If you want an alternative point of view on this, read Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class.

[@hannibalbarca3860]

Hello. I agree with your comment. Do you know any other sources, if possible written by aristocrats themselves, about the worldview of aristocratic classes which you described in your comment?

[@ideologybot4592]

The most obvious examples are all in the law surrounding slavery, where the right to coerce slaves was taken so much for granted that you can't understand the material without it. You can read about this is Carlin Barton's books, Roman Honor and The Sorrows of the Ancient Romans. That's not quite the primary source you might be looking for, but I can't, off the top of my head, think of a self-examination from the period that explicitly states what I'm saying. Ever seen an idea so overwhelmingly understood that people don't talk about it much? You run into that a lot in history. In any case, Cicero said, '‘The cash that comes from selling your labour is vulgar and unacceptable for a gentleman … for wages are effectively the bonds of slavery.' You don't just get an understanding of the relationship out of this. It's related to the idea that Romans saw 'otium' - not quite leisure, but a use of time for contemplation and self-fulfillment - as the prerogative of the upper classes or retirees, which implies that services rendered by the lower classes, slave or freeman, were meant to free up time for the higher classes. It's your basic economic specialization idea, before economics as a specific social science really existed. You can also look into slavery in the Bible: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery and this might give you more insights into the attitude. Go later than the Roman period, and it's harder, because everything is couched in religious language and, again, some ideas are just understood. If you want to read something enjoyable that gives some hints, you might want to check out Towles' A Gentleman in Moscow. In the opening part, specifically, you start to understand the self-image of a man from a noble family, and how closely it relates to how all their leisure time should be spent and how people should be treated. It doesn't talk about economic coercion, which isn't of the time period, but it's contemporary and serves as a palate cleanser for understanding what the aristocracy eventually turned into.

[@mongoliafab]

@gybot4592 "... services rendered by the lower classes, slave or freeman, were meant to free up time for the higher classes." -For your own sake, I hope you understand that there also were other basic reasons and causes behind labour being utilized by aristocracies, apart from the free-time granted to classes above?

[@ideologybot4592]

@@mongoliafab are you questioning whether I understand the concept of economic specialization? Or pointing out that there was threat of violence or deprivation if they didn't comply, in some kind of moral flex that doesn't belong in this conversation? For my sake, really, let me know.

[@algae_rhythms]

0:46 "The elevation of common man, or woman.... Or whatever " 😂💓

[@karvn1148]

Won’t be long before this channel blows up. Mark my words.

[@SG-ni8tk]

@karvn1148, let's help him blow up! This is so good! I just posted this video to a friend

[@miguelbustamante5271]

Just subscribed, excellent video. Nietzsche's message was distorted in the second half of the XX century, but the truth is unstoppable.

[@kalleandersson916]

This is my new favorite video

[@Undergroundaristocrat2578]

Very well made, good work mate

[@Agriking]

This was a good video. More people need to hear this message.

[@iamKristianBell]

Thanks brother!

[@nickzk1]

Woah, amazing work. Subscribed

[@heritagefirst]

Great video

[@g.odeoradhain]

Magnificent!

[@user-fd8fe9hk9q]

The best parts of this video was Nietzche. Your ideas about "making the system work for us" was especially strange. Basically just magical thinking. You say we should have the guiding morality of the old aristocracy combined with "making the system work for us" will make us all more free and empowered. However, the aristicratic morality is radically incompatible with the goal of making everyone more empowered. Your positive vision is self contradictory. You still think in the egalitarian paradigm yet are attracted by nietzsche, this is the source the dissonance in your thought.

[@iamKristianBell]

Dissonance precedes overcoming. If there is no conflict, there is no growth. So yes, how could we somehow integrate aristocratic morality without human slavery. it's a worthy question. Although I don't believe it could happen on a wide scale, but in a small community of free spirits, it's possible

[@user-fd8fe9hk9q]

The closest I can bring the two together is a very "gentle" slavery which allows the lower classes to rise if deemed worthy and also the upper classes regulate themselves as to punish excessive cruelty towards slaves. In some ways this is better than our own system, since our system bassically functions similiarly to a "gentle" slavery but also we have to deal with the ugliness and dissonance of an egalitarian society that will never be truly egalitarian since true egalitarianism the the destruction of all organization. I believe it was Robert Micheals who said: "He who says organization says hierarchy." It was certainly one of the italian elite theorists. @@iamKristianBell

[@iamKristianBell]

I agree with this. Thanks for your thoughts. There is hierarchy, and hierarchy of the Spirit. And to be egalitarian, and create equity removes this. But there is also brotherhood amongst kindred and noble souls. Perhaps they could simply live apart from the rabble. I don't necessarily think we need to depend on the rabble like we once did. But yes, stratification will happen in time

[@twannnchwan3449]

@@user-fd8fe9hk9q oligarchy not hierarchy iirc. I see you also listen to the Nietzsche podcast lol.

[@twannnchwan3449]

@@iamKristianBell The rabble? Really? It's the pathos of distance and the self-referential and self-defining nature of the ancients that let them be as they were and why Socrates was the final death to that way of life, once you can ask "Why do YOU rule?" then you must answer that question honestly, with attention to the impetus that caused that questioning to be possible. The ancients didn't leverage a system that does labor so individuals could be free. That just flattens everyone as non-workers, rather than separating them as above, and rightfully so. Then you move from that when questioned and simply refer to people as rabble, who are the rabble? What makes you think you won't be of the rabble? What selects the groups of free spirts? what hierarchy of spirit would come from a mechanical proses of sorting? You shouldn't just do away with these questions by referring back to the ancients, this requires actually engaging with the world where it is now.

[@Veteransolo]

Your channel is dangerously awesome my friend, Because you are dangerously awesome, you channel will grow, im sure of it, And they will hate you for it, But i got your back, Many of us got your back, Im sure, that you will be one of the men who will rise us rest of the men to manhood and masculinity, as it was before, Get ready for greatness, and be ready for a lot of haters, For they will come for you, They will come for all of us.👊💪

[@iamKristianBell]

🙏💪

[@petrabraham9512]

All the hard truths you mentioned here definitely don't make you very popular in the culture of sympathy for mediocrity. Great video!

[@taekfute]

You need a mix of both

[@MrGN-yy6op]

6:14 "feminine virtues"?

[@kronofogden4696]

Down with the old War statues, i Want more sexuality deprived statues 😈😎

[@Tato88888]

Constructional republic 👌🏼

[@ryana42]

When anybody starts talking about this is the natural way of things, my first thought is how are you so sure it is, are you an anthropology and biology student? If not, then saying this is the ideal society should be taken as suspect.

[@kokikokic9874]

Ancient Greeks were blackpilled. No virtue signalling.

[@maggiemakeupnails1056]

@kokikokic9874 Common comment that reveals your identity. Albanian or Bulgarian or Skopian. Comments full of hate and jealousy towards the Greeks. They reveal a huge inferiority complex.

[@TheAnnoyingRyan]

I think you might wanna look more into ancient greece because balckpilled and no virtue signalling is not how i would describe it

[@Veteransolo]

Maybe the Athenians, Not the Spartans.

[@rajashah1353]

And Roman Whitepilled

[@user-uo5st2re6m]

bro didn't bother to do another take

[@zeljkop5695]

5:00 loool a technosheep. who will create technology? In Switzerland there are highest loans but lowest culture...

[@TheAnnoyingRyan]

This is very average at best. It sounds to me like you're using Nietzsche to sell your own ideas, not even your own, just US culture war talking points brought home with a couple of quotes. You don't care about the decadence of society you're interested in making reactionary people feel morally superior. I hope you find less hacky themes for your videos and make them a little more rigorous and consistent

[@noble2786]

There is great irony in a leftist calling someone a reactionary in such a reflexive manner to not offer a single coherent criticism other than a twisted expression of their unhappiness. A couple of quotes is thrown away instead of analyzed and argued against. I suppose it would be better to study Nietzsche by appealing to your feelings instead of reading him. You are simply uncouth, but I offer reprieve. Daybreak 272 by Nietzsche. There are many additional examples I can provide if brevity does not suffice.

[@alephnull6457]

I'm not really convinced by the historical narrative being spun here. Why for example, didn't the Mongols or vikings produce Aristocratic high culture despite have roughly the same conditions and similar values to these ancient Greeks? And why did Islamic civilization produce the greatest high culture since the ancient (The Renaissance is worth noting but most of it was piggybacking off of Islamicate cultural achievements preceding it, such as their preservation of Roman and Greek classics during the European dark age). I mean, I guess Islam has a bit more 'manly virtue' but it still teaches humility and the equality of men before God, which is certainly counter to the Ancient Greek 'aristocratic' morality.