Nietzsche VS Plato | Twilight of the Idols | Philosophy

BECOME A MEMBER! (NEWSLETTER) thoughtsonthinking.org
Support me on Patreon (thank you!) / thoughtsonthinking
Instagram: / thoughtsonthinking
Twitter: / thoughtsonthin3
Join the Thoughts on Thinking discussion group!
/ thoughtsonthinking
In this video I talk about Friedrich Nietzsche's book: Twilight of the Idols chapter 3: 'Reason' in Philosophy whereby I outline Nietzsche's attack against Platonism & metaphysics.
#Nietzsche #Plato #Philosophy #TwilightoftheIdols

[@ThoughtsonThinking]

SIGN UP NEWSLETTER // WEBSITE: thoughtsonthinking.org Follow us on social media: Donate on Patreon (thank you!) www.patreon.com/thoughtsonthinking / Instagram: instagram.com/thoughtsonthinking/ Twitter: twitter.com/thoughtsonthin3/

[@joelfry4982]

If we don't have free will what does any of this matter?

[@ThoughtsonThinking]

What's your point??

[@joelfry4982]

@@ThoughtsonThinking My point is that if we don't have free will all of this is pointless, which is really a thing too obvious to say.

[@QuestionEverythingButWHY]

“The snake which cannot cast its skin has to die. As well the minds which are prevented from changing their opinions; they cease to be mind.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche

[@liubei7276]

Fun fact, when one searches for Nietzsche has a discussion with Plato [FULL ENGLISH SUB] here on YT, a full discussion between the two can be found. Very interesting and very good actors!

[@mariog1490]

I wouldn’t call Nietzsche a determinist. His highest principle is will-to-power. He definitely believes in free will.

[@Hotlux66_]

Exactly, the will and the organism that wills, is one and the same thing. You WILL because that is who you are, and what you are. So it is, as for any organism, a normal thing to strive for power, but that will cannot be divided from the organism that it is willing. So, he is deterministic in a sense that the will itself is deterministic, because it intrisically belongs to that same thing that wills. You cannot separate the will from that thing. And the same thing goes with the soul, you cannot separate a soul from the thing.

[@mariog1490]

@@Hotlux66_ I agree. That’s why he had a problem with free-will. He thought the concept wasn’t helpful. He also didn’t believe though that reality was just pushing me around and I’m helpless. That’s why it’s best not to say he believes in just free will or determined will, but in will-to-power.

[@lycurgusagoge9763]

My philosophy is inverted platonism: the further a thing is from true being, the purer, the lovelier, the better it is. Friedrich Nietzsche

[@mozartwolfgang4656]

Whatever you think Nietzsche is like this youre a pure fool.

[@thompsonhadaway2429]

There is no good or bad, but reason makes it so - Shakespeare

[@not2tees]

Well, one of Shakespeare's characters said that. Shakespeare himself is one step removed as he usually is.

[@michaelfitze7894]

Hmmm, very "zen." The question then becomes, "are you the master of your own thoughts?"

[@michaelfitze7894]

A prayer: "Who is the master of my thoughts, Master?"

[@PyrrhusNeoptolemus]

I've been looking forward to this.

[@Impossible033]

Beautifully crafted videos, my friend. I am enjoying them very much.

[@percivalbuncab]

What a timing! I just started reading Twilight of the Idols!

[@Kevin-rg7kl]

Please continue this!

[@ghfryw]

Hello, i study philosophy and teach in high school. I LOVE your work and i`m very grateful for your existence!!! Will support you in the patreon. Thanks! p.s.: please keep it simple for the high school students i often redirect here :)

[@ThoughtsonThinking]

That's amazing! Thank you, will do :)

[@JS-dt1tn]

It should be noted Heraclitus was before Socrates and in no way under the influence of the Socratic forms.

[@miltonbueno5689]

I think that Nietzsche is not a biological determinist. Because in the same book that you are examining(twilight of the idols) he writes this"No one gives man his qualities-neither god, nor society, nor his parents and ancestors, nor himself. " btw love your vids. I just think that categorizing Nietzsche as a biological determinist is not exact, but I think he's definetily a kind of determinist

[@ThoughtsonThinking]

Yeah, he just annoying and contradictory, in that piece your talking about he says that we are a "string of fate" which is also deterministic. He also talks about us being part of the whole and nothing but the whole which us something I will talking about in my next video in relation to quantum theory.

[@silent_stalker3687]

@@ThoughtsonThinking is this going off of Kaufman’s translations? Kaufman seems aware of certain people’s edits to his works after his death that would push such talking points, check his sister’s politics.

[@sadattahmeed7462]

Hey, do you have or plan to make videos on "The Genealogy of Morals"? I am currently reading this book, and really loving it!

[@darnellrichier623]

Using language to tell people how they shouldn't use language, classic. Using reason to deconstruct reason to tell people they shouldn't use reason, masterful. Loves art, hates forms but loves forms in art, nailed it. Genius, rebel, iconoclast, but stopped a bit short in his investigation of perspective. Reminds me terribly of myself or what i see in the world when we are unable to see passed our own particular perspective and realize the necessity of the others perspective. Some part of me wonders if he had a better social life he would have circled back and wound up more like Sartre or Camus, but in the end nothing could redeem others or society in his eyes. Proverb: If a man dies alone in a cabin in the woods, do his ideas live on in the minds of others. Love your videos my friend, keep it up. Probably one of the most appropriated thinkers in the history of philosophy, but I think you explain and critique him (and others) fairly and with care. Looking forward to the next video, Thank you.

[@miltonbueno5689]

I feel that Nietzsche is not saying that we shouldn't use reasons and language(he criticizes the forms as a critique of Plato's metaphysics not in their literal meaning) but that they served as a tool to perpetuate concepts(such as Plato's metaphysics and God) and that they supposedly were better than the senses.

[@miltonbueno5689]

Yeah, his social life was really trash and another problem was that he wasn't appreciated by his works, that probably had the effect of him being more acid and arrogant.(Even though he still had great ideas)

[@ZJasmineDragon]

really have to disagree... If you need to use these themes to make a functional argument, you fundamentally misunderstand how these themes are meant to be used, willfully or through ignorance

[@malikialgeriankabyleswag4200]

Nietzsche is so annoying because Im reading Senecas moral letters and I was enjoying it until his criticisms on their entire model makes it hard to take as seriously as before 😭😭😭😭

[@llRAMOSll]

@ beyond good and evil aphorism 9

[@brjboyce]

I think that Nietzsche probably had a tremendous appreciation for the Seneca and the stoics. I feel like he sort of pays homage to them in a lot of ways. You can definitely feel the idea of it can’t hurt you unless you think it can in Nietzsche... what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger is definitely stoic. Nietzsche just takes it to another level. A long time ago, I was a pretentious B Phil, now I just enjoy it all. Some Philosophers I just can’t go back to though. I always think about confessions by St. Augustine, but the thought of reading it again is pretty depressing😥

[@aaziis]

You must think by yourself. Nietzsche developped his own view.

[@dionysianapollomarx]

You know this is a hurdle, but a very good one. Sculpt your own way. I had classes on ancients, existentialists, pragmatists, metaphysics and German idealists. As a philosophy student, reading Nietzsche, Epictetus, Heraclitus, Seneca, Camus, Leibniz, Schopenhauer, Mäinlander, Schulze and Spinoza (plus the pragmatists) made me think I can meld all these Heracliteans (they fall in the same phylogeny of ideas, with the pragmatists through Kant) to be my own idiosyncratic Heraclitean. Nietzsche was all about the ideal of self-creation, as opposed to Socrates who was about self-knowledge which is his influence on the Stoics. The Stoics believed in volition, not absolute free will, which is corroborated now by neuroscience. Why not be both to become a Dionysian Stoic, where even irrational reality is rational?

[@dionysianapollomarx]

Ofc the tough shit is to do the work but that's where the fun is

[@fierypickles4450]

Really fascinating, and nietzsche has some sharp arguments. Especially the idea that there is no point in focusing on metaphysical conceptions because they are birthed from rationality, rather than something observed, and that even the will is suspect from his pov since it would violate causality. What i find interesting is that nietzsche still speaks almost as if the will were real, in the sense that he implores us to be better, or become or overcome ourselves. What is this actualization in nietzschian terms? When he says we need not be a genius or have talent to become great at something? Is that not will? And if it isnt, what do you call when you make an act to become better or who you are? Maybe there are various "roads" that are predetermined that you select from, but the choices within those paths are locked in. Meaning you can only choose perhaps the core values that determine your outcomes or paths. Idk. Im curious to know. Jordan Peterson posits that we act as if free will does exist, in much the same way that nietzsche suggests we ought not to waste our time on metaphysics because it comes from reason rather than the senses, i can imagine pondering whether we have it or not is equally fruitless because we act as if we do

[@tanxyrogue847]

You asked a question only to answer it, lol

[@fierypickles4450]

@@tanxyrogue847 not really, i just said what i thought. The question can still be open to a different answer from him or anyone else. I still dont know how nietzsche can believe in determinism and still hope we all act differently. Those were just shots im the dark

[@llRAMOSll]

@@fierypickles4450 N believes that reason can only take us so far--that eventually it becomes decadent. Much like when we ascend the utmost part of the ladder, we must take one step down as to not knock ourselves over. This is where N's conception of amor fati/eternal recurrencein come into play. Birthed from the recess of biological determinism, the individual is given the opportunity to participate in the dance of fate instead of being crushed by reason or deceiving yourself into metaphysics.

[@fierypickles4450]

@@llRAMOSll a dance of fate? Does that mean electing between several paths of fate?

[@llRAMOSll]

@@fierypickles4450 I mean that whatever path we are fated for should be embraced--whether it be favorable or unfavorable. Nietzsche does not wish for anything other. You ask how he could believe in determinism and still want us to behave in a manner other than what we are fated for? He doesn't. His philosophy was never meant for the masses nor will it ever be. There will be those who are destined for greatness and those for anything below

[@stefan-rarescrisan5116]

Nietzsche is right as long as 2 presuppositions are true: that biological evolution is real/true and that the Christian religion is not based in the 'sense reality' . I have thought about this subject in particular for a long time. And what struck me was that the Christian Gospel was preached not as merely some abstract philosophy, but as a truth based on facts, in this case the actual reality of Christ physical resurrection. (see 1 Cor. 15) Apostle Paul was too reasonable, too down to Earth, yet also too caring and loving. He, and the Christ he preached, must have either been an idiot, a lunatic, or right.

[@MJWynn]

To add on, Ultra-Darwinism and Creationists are both miss the target in a way. Darwin himself wasn't even an ultra-Darwinist (ultra--Darwinist being seen as all-encompassing and thus committing the non-sequitur that biological evolution infers atheism), as to do so is to also make evolution into a "thing", a concept that rises above reality. Plus, anyone who has studied religion or theology knows that thestic evolution is well standing in that there must be some sort of primordial flux. Professor Conor Cunningham has written on this exceptionally

[@thenowchurch6419]

I agree with you that Nietzsche was wrong since biological evolution itself cannot totally rule out a prime mover and guidance by an intelligence. I disagree with you on the soundness of a physical resurrection of Christ. The chapter you indicated by Paul contains the following verse: " It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. " 1 Cor 15: 44 This does not insist that Christ's physical body was raised, but that it was the seed for the appearance of a spiritual body. The same goes for Paul's comments earlier in the chapter. "14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins." I contend that the dead are indeed "raised" in the spiritual realm, with spiritual bodies.

[@stefan-rarescrisan5116]

@@thenowchurch6419 bro the grave was empty, the apostles and others saw him and touched him to their amazement. How in the world does that not imply a physical resurrection? And you go to a text that speaks about spiritual stuff before you even take into consideration the plain and clear texts on earthly stuff - like seeing and touching a resurrected body, who is also eating and very material. How can you pretend to understand the spiritual (and even worse, to assume that that negates the physical) when you don't even understand the earthly, more simplistic stuff?

[@thenowchurch6419]

@@stefan-rarescrisan5116 Bro, were you there ? All we can go by is historical records such as the writings of Paul, which preceded the Gospels and the Gospels themselves. Not only was I right to start with Paul because his writings are dated before the Gospels are generally dated, but also because I was responding to you and you did not reference the Gospels but Paul's writings. You might want to do some research on the Gospels. We have no proof that they were written by Mathew , Mark, Luke or John and most of the evidence points to the writers not being eyewitnesses to the events. They contradict each other on many points, especially concerning the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Here are a few examples. Mathew 28: 8 " And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring the disciples word." Mark 16: 8 " And they went out quickly and fled from the sepulchre, for they trembled and were amazed, neither said they anything to any man, for they were afraid." Scholars also note that Mark 16: 8 is where the majority of manuscripts of Mark end. Apparently someone or someones added verses 9 to 20, later. Luke 24: 4 says the women saw two men in shining garments in the tomb. Mark 16: 5 and Mathew 28: 2-3 both specify that one man in shining white garments is what they saw. psephizo.com provides some more" "How many days did Jesus teach after his resurrection? Most Christians know that “He appeared to them over a period of forty days” (Acts 1:3). But the supposed author of that book wrote elsewhere that he ascended into heaven the same day as the resurrection (Luke 24:51). When Jesus died, did an earthquake open the graves of many people, who walked around Jerusalem and were seen by many? Only Matthew reports this remarkable event. It’s hard to imagine any reliable version of the story omitting this zombie apocalypse. The different accounts of the resurrection are full of contradictions like this. They can’t even agree on whether Jesus was crucified on the day before Passover (John) or the day after (the other gospels) ." These are some of the reasons I do not take those accounts to be historically or factually accurate. It is more important to know that God is a Spirit and those who worship Him must do so in spirit and in truth. If you have His Spirit in you then you know that He lives and is real. Dependence on historicity and earth bound evidence will fail every time.

[@thenowchurch6419]

@@itisnow It makes more sense that Paul meant a spiritual body, such as Christ appeared to him by. A spiritual, non-physical vision. He places his own vision of Christ in the same category as the appearances to the other Apostles. 1 Cor 15: 6-8 : " 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."

[@ProDCloud]

DH Laurence is also a spiritual successor to Nietzsche.

[@josephcastellanos8859]

I want to start reading Nietzsche should I read his work in chronological order or is there a better sequence?

[@ThoughtsonThinking]

I tried that by starting with birth of tragedy, for me it was not exactly a very productive read, I would recommend starting with twilight of the Idols, the way it is written and constructed makes it easy enough to follow but the heavy work still is required. 👍

[@nobodyreally]

Thine•king or thinking.... Identification with "I" brings division and possession (thine servant king?) by thought. Not my will but thine be done. Identification + my"i"/thine (yours) = division/fragmentation

[@dannyclaydenchambers5907]

Love the videos but the ads interrupt my concentration. Wish there was a KZbin without ads

[@dannyclaydenchambers5907]

@A D yeah I know.

[@MrTapout180]

The thing with western philosophy is: jung believed, Plato believed, Marcus Aurelius believed... the thing with their beliefs is just perception of what they think reality is- a never ending debate.

[@nikolaiandre5751]

Jung was an empiricist

[@thenowchurch6419]

Jung did not believe, he experienced and knew. Socrates, Plato's teacher did not believe but questioned everything.

[@Bthunderwolf]

@@thenowchurch6419 also many of these greek philosophers were initiates in mystery cults, and had mystical experiences.

[@nikolaiandre5751]

Interviewer: «you believe in God?» Jung: «Hard to answer...» *smiles mischievously.* «I know»

[@thenowchurch6419]

@@Bthunderwolf Good point my man.

[@fgc_rewind]

The problem with N is, Im actually really convinced , He dosen't understand reason.

[@developmentofavoid2643]

Elaborate, please.

[@adityashiledar3832]

I'm currently reading this book, and it's SO revelatory, especially Twilight of the Idols.

[@malikialgeriankabyleswag4200]

2:34 If patterns and order are only a contruction of pur reason and not reflective of the "real world", how do we survive a day in the world? It must be that the apparent world is being instructed by some objective order to appear to us as it is otherwise nobody would die, nobody would struggle or get anything wrong, if everything we do isnt wrong. We are in a relationship with something which has its own rules of engagement and if you dont abide you end up like the 99.9% of other species which are extinct.. This External Universe is responsive to us too.. we can manipulate or command it into being in a way we envision by toil and technology.. I dont think he's right to say its a construction of reason, it seems more like a dance between consciousness and the Universe and the Universe is a very unforgiving mistress.. One wrong step in your routine and your entire species is over..

[@projectmalus]

We rescue patterns out that suit us, for survival. There could be an infinity of patterns and relations and humans able to see only a tiny part, and so our world is a simplified but workable view of reality. Or, you could see everything about the way we see the world as different from reality. Our senses chop experience into moments that are calculated and a representation displayed in our heads. Everything can be questioned including the identity of the one perceiving. This gives a freedom to play different roles, to allow intent instead of appearance to hold the reins, and break patterns of repetition however comforting in order to make room for new patterns.

[@malikialgeriankabyleswag4200]

@@projectmalus The fact that they do help us to survive MEANS something.. Why is it helping us survive? Where do these limitations comes from? We are being testing by something.. If we dont match this thing with our being like a jigsaw puzzle the way we get told is by extinction.. Another way to tell the "human model" of the universe's validity is how well we can manipulate reality, so far we've left orbit, soon we'll start colonizing the solar system and so on.. Whether we can reach that before causing our own extinction will be the final test of its validity.. Im not sure about any of this btw maybe its b-llshit who knows

[@malikialgeriankabyleswag4200]

@Anders Anderson Perhaps that Something is just another source of being just like we are.. Our interaction with it is what creates the "world in itself" and the extinction of a species is the end of that Universe that emerged into existence as a child/product of the intercourse between the collective consciousness of that species with the ever present "consciousness" of God/Nature.. Maybe the universe itself is the child born of our sex with God 😂 Maybe thats what he meant when he said the artist doesnt "immitate" the universe, the artist is the source of the Univserse itself, and his art merely an amplification or correcting of reality..

[@malikialgeriankabyleswag4200]

@Anders Anderson Like the limitations we face in technology.. Maybe those limitations exist in our models of the universe not the universe itself, and that our idea of the world is whay places those boundaries.. Those limitations wouldnt exist if it werent a goal for us to surpass them.. At the same time I might just be talking a load of abstract shit because thats kinda what we do when we allow ourselves to think in these terms.. Maybe another day ill read this again and think its all nonsense 🤷‍♂️ So I understand if you're thinking that right now 😂

[@malikialgeriankabyleswag4200]

@Anders Anderson If we think of a species as the source of a consciousness, like a genetic code, which in its genisis will meet the genetic code of Nature, and produce its child, the individual experience of a member of the species, that may explain our discordance with the findings of Quantum Mechanics.. I think this poses a great danger to the future sanity of our species.. It may be worth it to try to save Classical Mechanics to this end.. Look up "Pilot Wave Theory of Quantum Mechanics".. In my opinion that might be an attempt to fit the new information of this foreign environment: "the very small".. Into our understanding as something analogous to our Natural habitat i.e the Newtonian world..

[@Dino_Medici]

Jesus Christ. I’m far past a casual consumer of philosophy. But the being vs becoming argument is so hard to grasp. Anyone recommend any content on the subject? I feel like understanding what other axioms are synonymous w being vs becoming would really put things in perspective. I know it’s not that complicated. But once the idea of god gets thrown around I loose my grounding

[@TeaParty1776]

In the context of realism, subjectivism=mysticism. See: Aristotle, Rand

[@malikialgeriankabyleswag4200]

That intro 😂Oh wow the special thinkers

[@feet-xx3yv]

Does anyone else find it ironic that Nietzsche (an empiricist) believed that Plato and his adherents hated history?

[@stuarthicks2696]

Chapter 2 The Problem of Socrates.

[@not2tees]

"Nietzsche will reach ya." - Miley Cyrus!

[@petrosmaragkos5492]

What a waste of opportunity to mention Thucydides

[@JonathanRossignol]

Nietzsche became a neurotic mess and died after losing the faculties of his mind. #LFLR

[@thenowchurch6419]

True, but that does not take away the fact that he had profound insights and wrote some badass visionary poetic prose.

[@JonathanRossignol]

@@thenowchurch6419 You're entitled to an opinion, even if I think less of it.

[@darnellrichier623]

Doesn't take away from what he wrote, but does and should colour it. He was harshly disaffected in his social life. He wanted us all to be radically free individuals, but can we honestly say Neitzsche himself ever truly understood what it means to belong to a community, or the value and virtue therein? 50000 people attended the funeral of Jean-Paul Sartre, Neitzshe died alone and his sister corrupted his final work to make it Nazi propaganda. Sartre: my freedom =your freedom, Neitzsche: be the ubermensch Still worth reading though, even though his cynicism loses some of its teeth. Theres still a lot of genius and insight in there.

[@JonathanRossignol]

@@darnellrichier623 "Beyond Good and Evil" was comedic cynicism, but it did illustrate radical free will through nihilism. However, if an intellectual holds Nietzsche's word as gospel then they're destined to become some low tier atheist edgelord who really has no self-motivated purpose in life except to "debunk" the ideas of others (usually just attacking religious individuals by making petty observations). If you wish to exist as an individual who never makes anything of thyself then become a nihilist, but if your desire is to be remembered like someone such as Nietzsche then you should strive to become an individualist, because at the end of the day that's ultimately what he was. A kookie, sometimes humorous, mostly entertaining and I believe accidently profound for his era, but mostly he was just a radical individualist (a negator of anything/everything for the sake of standing out from the crowd). Nihilism as a philosophical practice has no value; that's the inside joke behind the man, the myth, the legend that is Friedrich Nietzsche (the self-serving nothingburger philosopher). LOL

[@thenowchurch6419]

@@darnellrichier623 I totally agree. He was a great critic but had no solutions and rejected metaphysics, the only realm his peace could have been found.

[@garyevans4101]

The fool has said in his heart there is no God

[@jorgegomez3224]

@Language and Programming Channel I am almost sure he is quoting something but not sure if it's the boble or what

[@TheGuiltsOfUs]

God does NOT exist

[@garyevans4101]

@@TheGuiltsOfUs ok fool

[@renevelazcokennedy151]

The fool may become the magician. The believe in a God is the strenght of the weak. To be waek is to cultivate the intelect. With the intelect you can not dance, so u will not mate. To say if God exist or not in a youtube comment may be fool.. . You are welcome my child

[@TheGuiltsOfUs]

Plato was a coward - platonism was weak, Nietzsche could see this too. Platonists couldn't even stop the desert cults from stealing their ideas. The insentient uncreator "One" was cast down and spirit worshipers elevated their bloodthirsty maniac to a supreme principle - laughable really.