Nietzsche: Why Arguing is for Weak People

Head to squarespace.com/weltgeist to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code WELTGEIST
Support us on Patreon, get access to exclusive videos:
▶ / weltgeistyt
OUR ANALYSES:
▶ Beyond Good and Evil: • NIETZSCHE Explained: B...
▶ The Antichrist: • NIETZSCHE Explained: T...
▶ Genealogy of Morals: • NIETZSCHE Explained: T...
▶ Twilight of the Idols: • NIETZSCHE Explained: T...
▶ The Will to Power: • NIETZSCHE: Will to Pow...
▶ Daybreak: • NIETZSCHE Explained: D...
▶ The Joyful Science: • NIETZSCHE Explained: T...

[@WeltgeistYT]

Head to squarespace.com/weltgeist to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code WELTGEIST

[@trenboiz]

I can't find you on spotify.

[@robertvann7349]

Really dude? Socrates said I know I know nothing. Only an idiot would say a foolish lie. One thing Socrates knew, he knew he knew nothing. Mustache man makes an argument to not argue, and he isn't a moron like Socrates? My philosophy is a man is either a pacifist or non pacifist, which is the wise man and which isn't wise? Like a liar and thief? Or, a non liar or non thief. Objective truth grasshopper, your not a wise man only a parrot.

[@sharpsrain8302]

Why do we think this guy's wise? His stace is the equivalent of a child throwing a fit

[@user-zf8lr9uf9n]

I put in actions but the city I’m in is all talk they bait you to call police and shit then call you soft it’ll be the same guys calling the police running their mouths like their tough that’s nyc

[@tomrhodes1629]

The biblical prophet Elijah has returned, as prophesied, and testifies: If Nietzsche would have known what the biblical "satan" is, he would have known that he was a satanist. Neither Socrates nor Jesus Christ had any power in his estimation, because that which Nietzsche considered "power" is actually insanity, Truth be known; the "power" of satan: the selfish human EGO.

[@morgziliuz1972]

"Your honor stfu you weren't even there"

[@akashdeepkar1547]

Underrated comment

[@pneumon6990]

I'm right - 🗿

[@bravechicken6251]

Moreover ‘I have a gun, fuck you!”

[@RobotDCLXVI]

Unironically correct. Too many armchair quarterbacks telling people how they should have boxed when they have never been punched in the face.

[@Yunic505]

😂

[@MrOvertoad]

Arguing with a smart person is tough. Arguing with a stupid person is impossible.

[@Red_Neck]

Considering most people are neither smart or stupid but just average In that case This statement just becomes a very subjective dig.

[@jackaufendale2164]

Nah, most people are stupid. The average person is stupid.

[@FxTR22]

I would argue "smart" and "stupid" is an objective observation. Everyone has its strengths and weaknesses. What you may struggle with is to understand the other person how he thinks and talk on his "level" instead only on yours.

[@alexdavis1541]

@@Red_Neck "Average" means "stupid"

[@JuliaZuckerberg]

​@@alexdavis1541 no average means medium (normal) like you and me😅😊

[@lizzkaayako2270]

Nietzsche's philosophy is a very long, very detailed series of arguments...

[@JaMeXDDD]

I don't think Nietzsche would call himself strong.

[@karimali2497]

😂

[@GB-gc6wy]

Then why should we take his advice?@@JaMeXDDD

[@rockie292]

He accepted that he was weak.

[@Lighty-jz2gm]

He criticised moralist argumentation, i.e. arguing that *x* is good or evil because of *y* . He never disavowed every type of argumentation and made it clear in his books that intellectuality is important, just not the cold, moralist intellectualism of Socrates and Euripides.

[@Victor_Andrei]

Lads, if someone commands you without arguments, dismiss them without arguments.

[@marqc.9904]

No.

[@albertmaheswara9968]

Like what you're doing now?

[@9box906]

Hitchen's Razor, for anyone interested

[@dubiousjack5420]

It depends on if it’s an actual command. Most people confuse commanding with being a brute.

[@piterpraker3399]

​@@9box906Poor guy.

[@ravendelacour1917]

As one of my teachers said. "People do things because they can, they want to, and no one stops them."

[@alexdavis1541]

And the greater their access to resources, the bigger their mistakes

[@ravendelacour1917]

@@alexdavis1541 Or the higher the triumph. If are not willing to risk failure, you will never succeed.

[@tillburr6799]

@@alexdavis1541 yeah but they can make a million mistakes and it’s okay because they can afford to

[@iammichaeldavis]

@@ravendelacour1917 yeah but if you aren’t willing to risk success, you’ll never fail

[@ravendelacour1917]

@@iammichaeldavis The Uttermensch philosophy in a sentence.

[@umbrascitor2079]

This philosophy sounds like it works from a narrow definition of strength and power. If the definition of "power" is along the lines of "gets results," then let's not forget that a mosquito can not only bully a horse, but even kill it by means that the horse is ill equipped to understand. Casting Men of Reason as gadflies who are an annoyance to Men of Power is an admission that the hide of the horse is not as tough as it looks. Indeed, the fact that an being as tiny as a fly can hope to even annoy a being on the scale of a horse, and compel the horse to unwitting (and mostly fruitless) action in response to its bites, is a testament to the fly's outsized leverage.

[@vocalshogun4662]

Underrated comment

[@spambot_gpt7]

The problem with reason is its ignorance of its own narrowness. Some old things - especially social conventions - just work, for reasons that are hard to understand and easy to dismiss. In many ways, today's society is out of touch with reality because it has dismissed old traditions without understanding them beyond a superficial caricature. So the proper hierarchy is like this; 1. Things that worked for a long time 2. Things that worked for a short time 3. Things that reasonably SHOULD work We have it backwards and call old things outdated. That's why we're not sustainable.

[@spambot_gpt7]

Look at all the idealistic utopians who want to change the world, but can't prove their system actually works over long timescales. They are the gabflies who destroyed a healthy society to replace it with a dream that won't happen.

[@umbrascitor2079]

@spambot_gpt7 I would agree that some _practitioners_ of reason are ignorant of the narrowness of their reasoning, but this isn't the fault of the principles or methods of reason itself. Acknowledging the limitations of one's reasoning is in fact an inherently reasonable way to conduct reasoning, and careful practitioners take great pains to do so. If the practitioners of a certain tradition were to carry out abuses in the name of their tradition, would you rather blame the tradition itself or its abusers? Second... it seems to me that if the old ways truly worked as well as you say they do, then we all would be quite happy with the outcomes and there would be no impetus to change them. The fact that these systems were compelled to change indicates that there was a blind spot somewhere and the old system fell short. Traditions are defined by their narrowness of thinking (by applying restrictive laws to the sheer wildness of reality, promoting certain constructs as "right, true, and good" while denying or outright banishing others) which means that any phenomenon that falls outside the scope of a tradition cannot be bound by the tradition's laws. A tradition cannot govern any phenomenon it hasn't accounted for, and when a tradition encounters any kind of surprise, that tradition must adapt or die. A surprise could be from the outside, such as a change in the environment since the time the system was conceived (think of the inevitable progress of history, technology, or moral development, or even literal changes in the natural environment). A surprise could also come from within the tradition (think divided factions each holding their own warring interpretations of the system, or civil unrest from the corners of society the system does not properly serve). It is fair to criticize extreme idealists for being out of touch with reality. I would also say that traditions that fail to evolve as the world evolves, are also out of touch with reality.

[@spambot_gpt7]

@@umbrascitor2079 That's true. It is necessary to change things as the world changes. But it is also necessary to do so with humility and responsibility. ONLY change something if your new idea is truly better. And you only know that after long-term testing. Adopting new technology is usually good. Often it is obviously better than what we had before. But humans have changed very little since we evolved. And we are very complex. So ambitious social changes are often very bad. And the consequences are often only visible much later. Adaption is necessary, but the idea of praising "progress" for its own sake is terrible and dangerous.

[@andreilapuste]

Did he just use logic to why we shouldn’t use logic?

[@mariusknappe1562]

Once you lit a fire you don't need the lighter, no? (there's issues with this metaphor, improve it/create a derivation)

[@GEOTHERMALHEAT0]

I don't he ever said that

[@sonofcronos7831]

The title is misleading. Nietzche is not against all arguments. Only against the Socratic arguments. Nietzche was a fan of the pre socratics and thet argued too and used logic. So Nietzche is not against that.

[@Tom_Het]

The title said "arguing" in general, but he seems to only take issue with specifically dialectics.

[@deadweaselsteve3262]

"Never argue. Give only results." - Benjamin Disraeli

[@pamus6242]

Actions speak louder than words.

[@dennisfarris4729]

Them that can, do. Them that can't argue.

[@KazzoKiller3890]

Slave asking why he's slaves. "Don't argue! Only results!"

[@maryfrances1307]

@dennisfarris4729 I agree. Arguments are generally excuses.

[@ShellInTheGhost404]

​​@@maryfrances1307Says the manager that is about to get her company sued for everything after disregarding her employees good faith arguments that the scissor lift has a flat tire. 😅

[@TheEmperorsChampion964]

"A lion does not concern himself with the opinions of sheep" Tywin Lannister, Nietzsche and Machiavelli of Westeros

[@cosmicprison9819]

He also said a man who must say "I am the king" is no true king. A man like Nietzsche who went on and on about "the strong" proved through his own life how weak he himself in fact was. Meanwhile, his ideological forefather and opponent, Arthur Schopenhauer, while maintaining many much more pessimistic positions, lived quite a decent life himself. Actions can speak louder than words...

[@willsh5282]

It doesn't work with pseudo lions though

[@subspace666]

@@cosmicprison9819 that's is kinda what makes him great. a weak person know how being weak sucks and see's the value of being strong. if he was a lion he would not care about us sheep and would not have written anything worthwhile to read now.

[@cosmicprison9819]

@@subspace666 So basically, Nietzsche’s writings are just a power fantasy? 😂

[@joysonbaretto3690]

​@@cosmicprison9819 Sir I have read your past comments. I want you to know that nietzsche despised politics especially fascists and right wing politics.

[@synapse71]

From Nietzsche - the guy who spent his life arguing and not commanding.

[@ramisamman1095]

And be sick his all life and financially depended on his sister and mother......I don't get him

[@Witnessmoo]

@@ramisamman1095he was radically honest… And he didn’t see himself as anything other than a person like all others - not a Ubermensche

[@slymbo2382]

@@ramisamman1095 wow dude, i've never heard that one before

[@Yura135]

he was the first incel... a powerless person paradoxically obsessed with the idea that individual power is the only thing that matters

[@RobotDCLXVI]

Doesn't necessarily invalidate his arguments/statements. He just recognized where he stood. Honestly more admirable than most other philosophy.

[@amanofnoreputation2164]

_When the great Tao is forgotten,_ _Kindness and morality arise._ _When wisdom and intelligence are born,_ _The great pretence begins._ _When there is no peace within the family,_ _Filial piety and devotion arise._ _When the country is confused and in chaos,_ _Loyal ministers appear._ -- Tao De Ching, Chapter 18 The critical insight Nietzsche makes, if not the philsophy he built upon it, is that conscious mediation in life betrays a loss of contact with the instincts. This is a phenomenon hinted at by the expression, "Ignorance is bliss." _The Tao is both named and nameless._ _As nameless it is the origin fo Heaven and Earth._ _As named it is the mother of ten thousand things._ The named Tao is the world as representation. The nameless Tao is the world as will. That world of Will is forgotten when consciousness interferes in life, for better and worse. When we consider Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, this all sounds very familiar. But unlike Nietzsche Lao Tzu was strongly pacifist, and not out of a sense of moral piety but because he, as Thucydides argues in his case, considers interdependence to be the law of nature, not domiance. _The sage, who is attuned to Tao, warns the ruler against the use of arms for conquest._ _Weapons often turn upon the wielder._ _Wherever armies are stationed, briers and thorns grow._ _Great wars are always followed by famine._ _A good general stops when he achieves his purpose._ _He does not parade his victory._ _He does not boast his ability._ _He does not feel proud._ _He rather regrets that he has not been able to prevent the war._ _He must never think of conquering others by force._ _Whatever strains with force will soon decay._ _Because it is contrary to the Tao._ _Whatever is not attuned to the Way of Tao will soon perish._ Athens won a great victory over Melos, but where is their empire today? Nietzsche fixates on the hierarchical aspects of empires and ignores their cooperative aspects. Thus he too falls victim to decadence. _Heaven is eternal; the Earth is endures._ _What is the secret to their durability?_ _They do not live for themselves only._ _That is how they can be eternal._

[@hoots187]

interdependence does not preclude violence from occurring: especially in the economic sense at least.

[@oshunblack6883]

But your missing the fact that the tao isnt really about wisdom of the external world, but a metaphor for the inner being and the true way of living.

[@AwesomeWholesome]

Taoism paves the way to Eastern Christianity. Being is eternal co-mmunion as manifest in the eternal relation between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The essence of God is Nameless such as according to Dyonysius the Areopagite's "On the Divine Names", while the energies of God can be known through it's many Names. The difference is this: the communion of Heaven and Earth and between all peoples is realized in the Incarnational person of Christ. This is represented by the Holy Cross which extends infinitely upwards and downwards conjoining Heaven and Earth, as well as leftwards and rightwards to conjoin Creation. Eastern Orthodoxy is not only early esoteric philosophy enshrouded in mystery, but rather the complete, fulfilled, divine revelation of the perennial mystery fully revealed. Check out Seraphim Rose's "Nihilism" and "Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future", the book "Christ the Eternal Tao" written by a hieromonk, as well as the philosophy channel Telosbound. Eastern Christian phronema and praxis is the complete, real and divine Way to theosis.

[@ImmortalScholar-dh2zb]

This, this is the one area my instincts feel a friction to Nietzsche's master morality. Aristocratic societies were not so pleasant to live in either. Kill all the men and enslave all the women seems a rather boorish display of power as a nation/tribe. Primal, but boorish. Or should I say, decadent?

[@josephpercy1558]

@@oshunblack6883 And what is this "external world" you speak about? Where were you when you were born into it?

[@gerhardvanderpoll7378]

So,to the question of:"Why does a dog lick its balls..?" Nietzsche also gives an often standard reply:" BECAUSE IT CAN..!!! "

[@gabrielnieves4912]

Insightful.

[@captainzork6109]

The dog is strong. The man is weak. Man must give reason, dog is independent and self-sufficient

[@jdmayfield88]

@gerhardvanderpoll7378 That right there pretty much sums of the truth of why people do what they do. Humans do what is instinctual and natural to them, as do dogs. Because they to. However much "reason" the motivations of humans may be couched in, does not make the simple truth of the matter any less true. People do what they do because they want to, and because they can. All of it. True for humans. True animals.

[@jdmayfield88]

@@captainzork6109 Uh, dogs for the most part don't stand a chance without humans. Also, I am an average-size male, and I can easily overpower most dogs. Dogs require feeding and care by humans.63

[@captainzork6109]

@@jdmayfield88 Hey alright. Nice 300 word essay

[@primetimeperformance]

Dude, you’re an exceptional teacher. Entire books have failed to make clear what you so easily explained in 15 minutes.

[@Acoustic-Rabbit-Hole]

Yes. It's beyond Reaganonics. Beyond Bidenomics. It's Nitetzche-nomics!

[@thehobbit5492]

Nietzsche arguing why arguing is for the weak...oh the irony

[@joblakelisbon]

It's a statement, not so much an argument.

[@lukedegraaf1186]

​@joblakelisbon what's the difference?

[@CrazyLinguiniLegs]

@@lukedegraaf1186 you are honestly asking for the difference between a statement and an argument? Okay. Statement: Peaches are wonderful. Argument: Peaches are wonderful because…and…and…which means…etc, etc.

[@Steven_DunbarSL]

​​​​@@lukedegraaf1186Arguments are sets of statements that are put forward to support a claim or conclusion. The claim or conclusion itself can be a statement. A statement on its own is generally an assertion of something. For example, the other commenter said peaches are wonderful. They are asserting that peaches possess the quality of being wonderful. An argument can be that peaches are juicy. This is a statement to support the assertion that peaches are wonderful. This assumes juiciness is a quality of a wonderful peach.

[@lukedegraaf1186]

@stevendunbar3752 that's where my confusion is, a statement asserts some proposition. To me; that's an argument.

[@Gruso57]

I love Nietzsche as a philosopher. He's one of the greatest thinkers ever. However, I wish he wasn't popular. His philosophy of power can only apply to the strong and very few. Now we have all of these people believing they can demand people to do anything when they don't have the power to or proper intellect.

[@redhidinghood9337]

Mirror mirror on the wall.. who's the most delusional of them all?

[@craigrandle6966]

The dude was a weak and abusable man himself

[@kaleem346]

power is also about not listening to the one you don't want to, what our homie Nietzsche meant was, when you know what is right you don't have to obey or explain, you just take action.

[@shaunkerr8721]

This sounds like a really decadent position. I want everyone believing they are supremely intelligent and powerful as that means the truly powerful and smart are on top if an absolutely majestic perch. It's like those who complain about women gaining in power in society; the weak only gain in power when the strong are decadent and ripe for overthrowing. If the aristocratic class in Athens was not decadent, an ugly pleb like Socrates would have been easily dismissed. Remember that Nietzsche said that the best people, the true individuals who are the strongest types, will mostly be destroyed by the mob. It's only a arbitrary, random, and seldom seen star that actually gets a chance to shine. Complaining about the weak shows fear and concern for them. If they are truly not as powerful as you or as smart, then don't be concerned with them. They might destroy you but it is of you to live dangerously. Be concerned with approx equals and overcoming yourself and nothing else.

[@divulgedspirit]

​@@redhidinghood9337says the guy who is obsessed with fairytales

[@JCDenton916]

This comment section is the definition of ☝🏻🤓

[@bennymountain1]

So is this video.

[@Le___K]

​@bennymountain1 Nah he just explains, but that comment section tho...

[@musashiwebb]

Be wise enough to know when, where, why, and with whom you ought to do battle using words/Reason. Be strong enough to know when, where, why and with whom you ought to crush using the body/Force. Be that which you were meant to Be.

[@CoruptedJester]

^This. A balanced approach is what everyone should be aiming for.

[@canotajman]

As always a balanced approach between the two philosophies is best. No extreme is good as one cannot function without the other.

[@jacobblanton5179]

Clearly one can function without the other, it's just usually bad for the largest number of common people when that happens Within Noetzsches and our time "reason" reigns so supreme it has destroyed even itself, and so that is why he is obsessed with its harms and dangers. Perhaps if Nietzsche had lived in a world of Egoistic dominance he would have come to the same methods and ideas espoused by Socrates instead

[@lionheart5418]

Amazing video, great explanation and summary! Thank you.

[@SonofTiamat]

"Gish gallopy walls of text are for the weak," _Nietzsche

[@Lexthebarbarian]

The great philosopher is so right. Debates, argumentation and tiresome polemics are more of a superficial spectacle. The thing is, however, that the great philosopher often ended up himself in quarrelsome debates and argumentative conflicts.

[@majidbineshgar7156]

A plumber is expected to be good at installing and repairing water pipes , and a Philosopher is expected to be good at arguing .

[@yoeyyoey8937]

They don’t have to be spectacle though. People turn it into that because they are weak. True argumentation, etc is power

[@dalelerette206]

Nietzsche loved Dostoevsky so there may be hope yet.

[@vccv9785]

​@@majidbineshgar7156this is how Socrates poisoned your mind

[@Sonny_McMacsson]

@@majidbineshgar7156And I'm not a lion. I'm just a man exercising my intellectual nature like the lion uses its teeth. I don't have to justify it.

[@theyetti90]

The reason the human cannot behave like the lion is that when man meets with an outcome he dislikes he may construct a way through or around it, and arguing, often with one's self is part of the construction.

[@thegreatfapsby5786]

word salad make more concise - c+

[@tedgemberling2359]

@@thegreatfapsby5786 I think what theyetti90 said is clear.

[@KazzoKiller3890]

​​@@thegreatfapsby5786 big man kill animal, when animal too big, big man ask if man get bigger, when man cant get bigger, big man makes big weapon and kills bigger animal.

[@MegaPhilmurray]

​.. and concise!

[@sanukatharul1497]

​@@thegreatfapsby5786 "ooga booga me no understand words so word salad"

[@1bionic1]

An excellent presentation!!! Thank you for sharing.

[@aydannelson1802]

Yes! Let’s forget what makes us human, because power is the only thing that matters!

[@Acoustic-Rabbit-Hole]

Funny, but this sort of confirmed my Catholicism and gives me more self-love. Instead of constantly acting in self-sacrifice, I can be a little more selfish and tyrannical; not because I rejected Socrtates, but because my will and strength will always be tempered by God, that I might not stop over someone's life or boundaries in HIS name. Christianity could be the Happy Medium-point. For some, I suppose...

[@tonyamartin1425]

@@Acoustic-Rabbit-Hole yea ask anyone that is nonwhite if it has ever been used that way in reality??Ever??? name a non-white people that Christianity touched that weren't raped pillaged and taught self-hate so you can pontificate as to how wonderful it is. Who are the biggest landowners on earth? The Catholic Church they did a lot of killing now you can talk with a flowery tongue.

[@cgsrtkzsytriul]

And yet the tradition of rational argument that comes from Socrates literally transformed the weak into the strong. “Whatever happens, we have got the Maxim gun and they have not.”

[@ravendelacour1917]

Maxim gun comes from technological innovation which comes from the scientific method, the opposite of philosophy. Science deals with what demonstratively true. Philosophy deals with invented pretense.

[@user-cp9yo4jk9b]

the scientific method is a philosophical idea. do not talk about things you won't even do basic research on

[@user-cp9yo4jk9b]

@@ravendelacour1917the scientific method is a philosophical idea. do not talk about things you won't even do basic research on

[@dalelerette206]

Nietzsche loved Dostoevsky so there may be hope yet.

[@ravendelacour1917]

@@user-cp9yo4jk9b No it's not. It's a method of objective trial and observation empty of any systematic intellectual prejudgements. Given my degree and career in science, you know actual experience as opposed to sticking my nose in a book and claiming I know truth, I'm going to put more weight on my observation than your assumption.

[@rajdeepmane795]

And then there's also the fact that nietzsche somewhat liked socrates as well. For being exceptional.

[@ZomboidMania]

I finished the video, and my opinion from the beggining hasn't changed, not questioning yourself is how people like my dad are created, assholes who do what they want and treat others whatever way they want without even thinking about it

[@Witnessmoo]

He is living his best life, true to his nature.

[@elgranbetinsky2678]

Have you ever question yourself what your dad went throu to act like that?

[@albertmaheswara9968]

​@@elgranbetinsky2678doesn't matter, having a sad and tragic anime backstory doesn't mean you get to be an ass

[@albertmaheswara9968]

​@@Witnessmoothat means OP can punch his dad in the face, right? Just being true to his nature

[@Mantis-ti5ve]

Lmao daddy issues manchild your father sounds like a Chad

[@egoborder3203]

this really puts into perspective why Frank Herbert in his Dune series decried the Socratic model, which he said became the Roman model

[@curtisbauer2803]

Can you explain this? I am new to Dune, and reading through the second book right now and was hoping you could explain his dislike of the Socratic model

[@cloroxbleach6344]

@@curtisbauer2803keep reading until God emperor, then come back with questions

[@Aim54Delta]

​@@curtisbauer2803 Why is it that no matter how much peace and prosperity mankind rises to, there is always so much chaos and suffering to be found? That shouldn't spoil too much while giving you something to keep in mind while reading.

[@Yura135]

yeah, those famously weak and powerless Romans. who after absorbing Greek culture never amounted to anything. immediately becoming slaves, and not at all creating an empire that enslaved most of the ancient world. /s

[@Aim54Delta]

@@Yura135 If it was so powerful, why is it referred to in the past tense? The Gnostic tendencies of Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates is parasitic. Only after a civilization has achieved greatness and conquered its rivals in nature and culture can it engage in "the finer arts" of questioning the methods and motives for doing so, then believe itself to be the root of evil. You can see the process playing out right now in the form of critical theory. The importation of foreigners of 'superior' moral virtue to counteract the 'injustice' of 'the oppressors.' Everything which allowed us to build an unprecedented era of international cooperation among nations is not just being challenged, but decried as evil and detestable while those who claim to be paragons of moral virtue run ethical defense for cannibal gangs. All the while, the men who argued the government should be constrained in power and be governed by and for the people of a nation ... Are decried as evil and their statues removed from society - their entire lives placed under the critical theory microscope and subjected to purity testing and struggle sessions. But you're just full of misunderstood, justified outrage if you are running around and cooking/eating your political rivals, it is our culture which must be in the wrong because it didn't give captain barbecue a Tesla. It was exactly this type of thinking and process which led to the implosion of Rome as an empire.

[@connyslayer4661]

I love the fact that you have covered this and this is a very fascinating topic to talk about. Argumentation can have purpose but overusing it can be ridiculous and stem from insecurities. The thing is people aren't going to take this in several ways and sometimes miss the point. Nietzsche is just making a statement about how if you want to do things then do them and let your actions do the speaking. Actions and results matter. If you are secure and strong with yourself, You wouldn't prove yourself by argumentation but you would prove yourself by action alone because you can and it's something that's natural to you. Keep up the beautiful work, Weltgeist. 👍✨🔥

[@justinreamer9187]

And yes, do Alcibiades.

[@tonyamartin1425]

this was timely and life changing solid work I will be joining soon.

[@JoshuaBurton110213]

I've always believed there is a reason for everything. It may not be your reason or you don't understand the reason, but there is still a reason for every action of every living being on this planet.

[@JustAnUnnamedCat]

*continues to argue why arguing is for weak people

[@silverfish2380]

😂 good one

[@EXDna]

He is COMMANDING the content lol

[@Renannight6]

22:30 - yes! I'd love a video on Alcibiades!

[@iChrisBirch]

Thanks for the video. I haven't thought deeply about this topic in this way before. I appreciate the perspective and presentation.

[@h3k48]

Excellent vid. Thank you!

[@z1d2g3c4]

this bring "ignorance is bliss" to a whole new level

[@kredit787]

If arguing is for the weak, then Nietzsche's argument that arguing is for the weak would imply him to be weak. Instead he should have only said that arguing is for the weak without an explanation.

[@suruxstrawde8322]

There's actually already a much better phrasing for this nowadays, it's a type of logical fallacy called arguing in vain I beleive. When a meaningless discourse is started only because of arbitrary disagreement and with no actual argument to put forth.

[@suruxstrawde8322]

Which, if anything, ironically what he's doing in this context.

[@kredit787]

@@suruxstrawde8322 Similar to begging the question, no support and endless restatements of a conclusion.

[@madbowler6]

Scott is an interesting dude and a great guest, thanks for having him on! You’re doing great, Zuby, keep it up!

[@siroossamangooee9688]

I really enjoy your Nietzsche videos! I would like to know more about Alcibiades. It would be interesting to compare his character to Nietzsche's ideas about the Ubermensch.

[@GnohmPolaeon.B.OniShartz]

He lost an argument before he wrote this one.

[@annibhardwaj6914]

Alcibiades Yes video, please. I think this one would be similar to Cesare Borges. Please keep on bringing such gems of personalities to us.

[@Peoplearefood]

Good vid broski

[@alonking4321]

Your videos are beyond good :)

[@almor2445]

It's all about what is appropriate for the time. Socrates is my kind of thinker. He picks apart long-standing beliefs to ensure those that remain make sense. This serves many functions but is rarely appreciated by the irritated powerful or the common man. Most of the time, it doesn't matter what your arguments are. You get say if you have power and will. Besides, logic and rationality can only get you so far if you have limited knowledge. Many a "wise" person has come to ridiculous conclusions while many a Farmer knew it was ridiculous all along. Maybe society needs a Socrates when it had fossilised institutions that have served for years but out-lasted their usefulness. And they need a Nietzsche when the intellectuals spend all their time debating and not creating or destroying anything.

[@Novastar.SaberCombat]

Correct. If a wealthy, powerful, well-connected, popular individual claims that monkey bü++§ are the best sources of rocket fuel, then no poor, unknown, isolated pleb refuting that would be recognized and heeded; they'd be ignored. Social and financial classes determine what is "correct". Might is right; health is wealth (even if they are "wrong").

[@yoeyyoey8937]

What if you can create and destroy through argumentation and debate?

[@ravendelacour1917]

Outside of Skyrim Dragon shouting or Kabbalistic Hebrew character based magic would you do that? Words usually don't make or destroy things. Hands do.

[@Apebek]

@@ravendelacour1917 Before your hands can do work you need to have an idea or a goal. If it is communal you cannot do it without exchaning ideas

[@ravendelacour1917]

@@Apebek Nothing has been improved by doing it by committee.

[@ilonabaier6042]

Sure! Please do a vid on Alcibiades. Thanks so much in advance!

[@marcosberrios7691]

That was really good. Thank you.

[@TheSingularitarian]

That was great! Thanks!

[@inigma_ITC]

"If animals only knew the potential of saltpeter..." Said Some Guy Who Reasoned What's Good for Fireworks is Good for Throwing Lead Balls

[@walterramirezt]

That was not a strong enough argument

[@harishkajol295]

One of the best videos I ever watched !!!! you earned you self a subscribe

[@robertvann7349]

Really grasshopper? In light of all the killing. Should a wise man objectively argue for free willed pacifists or non pacifists? For, instant world peace? If your a free willed non pacifist your the evil of the world, period. Philosopher Bob says so ..... peace out non pacifist evil of the world.

[@michaelvan-vn9ku]

🎉 great topic ! No time to watch the video now but later on this evening I will bring out the popcorn.

[@not_anybody_in_particular]

When evil becomes willing to shed the cloak of reason in pursuit of power, it is the duty of the righteous to do the same. Regardless of the transcendent truth, we still live in the material world which is governed by power alone.

[@bigjerome-wz4uo]

This is super random, but this spoke to me in a confusing time, thank you.

[@avp2010]

Darkness and Light are brothers. They both serve the father’s kingdom.

[@nullme5]

Evil and good aren't real, it's subjective. Righteous people are either naive or manipulative

[@Endymion766]

I think Nietzsche would have loved/hated Cormac McCarthy's books and the 2nd Amendment. He's not entirely wrong. Why should the tyrant respect what we commoners have decided our "rights" are? I suggest we try reason first, appeals to sympathy 2nd, then the force multipliers last.

[@yoeyyoey8937]

If you argue by the fallacy you will die by the fallacy

[@mennydorgesEldenRingArchive]

“Might makes right” doesn’t take into account how might is created, generated and kept on, a tyrant can do that, but they wouldn’t last long. Just like Nietzsche btw

[@xFirtewx]

@@mennydorgesEldenRingArchive no one lasts long my dude , but only a few last in power , while many last in subjugation and deprived of true power.

[@spotify80]

What a great video!

[@gusfring6887]

A video on Alcibiades would be wonderful 👍

[@thenew4559]

Wouldn't a statement along the lines of "arguments are bad" be a self-defeating statement, as it is itself an argument? I mean, what Nietzsche is doing here is making arguments for why arguments are bad.

[@PatrickPease]

Truth is the greatest tyrant, it is always right and it will humiliate all who resist. There are no men more powerful, none greater than even the slaves of truth.

[@AwesomeWholesome]

As an Orthodox Christian, we believe that being a slave to Christ--eternal Wisdom and Logos, is many times stronger than being a slave to one's lonely mortal passions. To us, the martyrdom of the righteous is the greatest humiliation to evil. "Come, let us bow down and worship before Christ--Truth Himself."

[@joysonbaretto3690]

​@@AwesomeWholesomehmm.... Are you describing Plato's theory of forms?

[@Tusk-ruk]

Understand that you don't need to "win" by convincing others, and certainly not by taking the opportunity to punish them. You win by learning from them, by gently letting them see the limits of their perspective and letting them challenge the limits of yours. Take it like the intellectual equivalent of playful sparring, and you'll be pleased and elevated by the exercise.

[@vestEn17Z]

Please make a video about Alcibiades. I didn't know about him until I watched this video and the metaphor is amazing

[@clivehindle4681]

Yes, Alcibiades is an interesting character.

[@majidbineshgar7156]

According to that statement " Arguing is for Weak People " also ignorant ,intellectually impaired people tend to not be able to argue; ergo : " Stupidity and ignorance is power "

[@rumplstiltztinkerstein]

Nietzche feels quite insecure some times. Like he is trying to hide his fears behind a facade of heroism.

[@majidbineshgar7156]

@@rumplstiltztinkerstein Yes one needs to compare Marcus Aurelius who was a great military leader a true warrior , a Roman nobleman's philosophy with that of Nietzsche ( cosy armchair philosopher )and his followers .

[@cediljubic6647]

That's a logical fallacy. "Arguing - -> Weak" doesn't imply the inverse, ie that all who don't argue are strong. I'm probably weak for arguing with you over logic though

[@mesa9724]

@@cediljubic6647 Arguing is ok if you are looking for truth or something like a “truth” because it’s not even clear of there is such thing as truth. But if you argue let’s say as Socrates did he would probably want to kill you.

[@majidbineshgar7156]

@@cediljubic6647 Let us address that statement in different way as to whether a "strong man " refers to having a strong body ? in which case one can only persuade others through mindless violence , or whether that statement might refer to having a strong mind ?( or both ?) now If a man is gifted with a strong mind / character , if he considers himself as mentally superior to others then he must be also capable of persuading others through his argumentative discourse but if he refuses to do so, it implies that he does not trust himself i.e. that he is not mentally superior after all/ he feels he is weak therefore he is incapable of persuading others by his power of mind expressing his powerful arguments .

[@giovannimartin3239]

I’ve always tried to find a balance, an imbalance really, but a working system that allows me to do both. Through journaling I reflect and develop aims and goals, and then I just try to execute on those goals without thinking. I course correct with evening journaling sessions.

[@worldnews2660]

Arguments and reasons is better than just command.

[@Mark-fc7tu]

Thing is, most folks don't like it when you command and boss them about. Hence, a society dominated by arguments.

[@redhidinghood9337]

Not a single person likes being bossed around. Self-determination is one of humans core wants and a source of intrinsic motivation. Orders from other naturally have the opposite effect unless the person has some reinterpretation (rationalisation) or coping mechanism that usually comes with age. That's why when we were teens we didn't want to do things our parents ordered even if we initially were thinking of doing them ourselves.

[@welcometoWWW]

You do when it's your loved ones. Where there is harmony.

[@dagerman7032]

Arguments? Did you mean propaganda?

[@Adam-nu7bi]

But you can still find this passage useful. You can try to convince your boss you deserve a raise because bla bla bla and get 100% chance of refusal. You can tell him you got a job offer, and they are going to pay better, and you are considering it, and you came to talk ask for a raise. You do not argue why you should get a raise, you just state the fact you are getting a raise.

[@feralearthworm3044]

​@@redhidinghood9337I feel in your comment that you and OP have made a very big assumption, and it's not too dissimilar to the fish in the fishbowl analogy mentioned in the video. In different eras, people accepted power dynamics much more easily, and in different cultures, even today, people will look at you very oddly if you were to question "might makes right" power dynamics and you try to argue logically about an issue.

[@dariogomes3598]

Nietzsche would've never thought of this if Aristotilies never questioned himself why he thought the way he did! His point off view have merit, regardless.

[@walpurgisnacht9234]

I guess the question Nietzche never asked was which of these two approaches would lead to a more stable society? Did it ever occur to him that the reason Greek Society was crumbling was because they weren't asking the questions that needed to be asked? That in their endless quest for power and glory they overlooked what could have potentially saved their society?

[@vamsi142]

I would very much love to see a video on Alcibiades. Thank you!

[@kadran3263]

The endless labyrinths of intellectualism is one of the pitfalls to avoid in Buddhist teaching, along with slaking of the passions and indulgence of the emotions. Comparing Western thought to Indigenous worldview, the key difference is Western disconnection. A culture that has achieved so much in terms of wealth inequality and environmental destruction could only have come about with a complete disconnection. Nietzsche appears to identify the mechanism of this disconnection and I'm reminded of a Star Trek quote: '...you can use logic to justify anything. That's its strength, and its flaw.'

[@redhidinghood9337]

There's nothing special about indigenous people idk why y'all are treating them like some elves. There were tribes that would start huge wildfires to control the environment for their own benefit and that was widespread. Making generalizations is always a pitfall no matter the worldview

[@yoeyyoey8937]

Dissociation. It’s a strength and a weakness like everything else

[@joblakelisbon]

A civilisation's advancement is in proportion to its impact on nature. There is no advanced society that doesn't impose itself upon nature.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

"He makes the case..." In other words, he argues !

[@BoyJaeDeren]

Very insightful video, I think Nietzche is my favorite philosopher lol

[@sinanbekir160]

I would like to see more about the topic. It is very interesting.

[@AbAb-th5qe]

I think argumentation can be a more positive force and not merely undermine. Debate can help us to 'kick the tires' of potential beliefs we might decide to take up to find the strongest ones for any situation. It also prepares us to be more mentally flexible.

[@HeortirtheWoodwarden]

The problem is that we can discover the reasons behind natural instincts. We should not question these instincts themselves though, but instead seek their origin through how they benefit a creature in the process of natural selection, and therefore extract the truths about Nature instilled in the instincts. Reason shouldn't be used for questioning Nature, but for operating better within it. Using instinct alone is flawed since instinct is merely a xerox of a xerox of the fundamental truths of Nature propagated through natural selection, and therefore is ignorant of context or nuance. The ideal framework should be for our ultimate goals be informed by those fundamental truths of Nature, and for Reason to be used to best achieve those goals.

[@dionmcgee5610]

Not sure of I agree with the stipulation "we should not question our instincts." While I'm a strong believer in natural harmony and despise religion for breaking humanity from the natural world, I first and foremost question EVERYTHING. There are no ideas nor subjects beyond reproach. Moreover, evolution is anything but intelligently devised for future needs. Many a natural instinct that leads to extinction. Useful one year, detrimental the next. So perhaps with a caveat we can agree.

[@petera.9362]

Outstanding! Very well done. Thank you.

[@crito3534]

Despite all his references to antiquity, Nietzsche was very grounded in his own time. Rationalism, irrationalism, racism, imperialism, socialism, etc. It's more about XIX century Europe than anything else.

[@techpriest6962]

This video has really outed the fools from those willing to learn. So many just dig at the very notion rather than try to understand the point before coming to a conclusion.

[@itstimeforafuckingcrusade]

This is common with philosophy lectures. People tend to get hurt when their ideals are poked at, not examining what is being criticized. That's why I don't bother reading comments because I have to sift through the chaff of comments that get boosted to the top in order to find actual interesting comments

[@jidieo1157]

I don’t think we should do things just because we can.

[@TiberiusMachado]

No. No we should not. I CAN right now, jump up and start pulling books off the shelves, then get naked and run around screaming "who wants to be a millionaire?!!" Yeah that's about the most random thing I can think of. I have the *ability* to do those things but there is a distinct lack of motive.

[@burgamushun]

You do not need to deliberately think about why you should not kill another person randomly. If you really need to, you are a maniac - no one listens do they? Or they lack understanding.

[@vermin5367]

We never do things just because we can, we do things because we want to.

[@Nestoras_Zogopoulos]

@@vermin5367 so genocide is okay if one wishes to do it and has the means to commit it. Sure mate.

[@hanstwilight3218]

It seems intuitive that in reality its the other way around. In order to effectively “argue” with someone you have to know not only the contents of your own mind, you have to know the others as well, but it doesnt stop there!! You then have to compare and contrast, on the fly and make sure that what ever analysis your building too doesnt end up working to theyre favor, all the wile following the flow of the conversation to make sure your points are rightly timed,logically consistent with availability to explain deeper on any given point, if required. And then you have “giving a command”…🤨. “ tuff stuff “!!

[@haider9874]

"angry german mustache man does what he can, the weak suffer what they must"

[@luisclaudiodaltro4064]

Good vibes from Brasil, dude😊

[@syourke3]

Nietzsche says a lot of silly things. This is one of them.

[@tim3tRav3l3RR60]

Name another

[@syourke3]

@@tim3tRav3l3RR60 OK. How about the “Ubermensch”? And the Death of God leading to universal nihilism? And the whole notion that might makes right? That compassion and other such Christian values are false and decadent? The exaltation of power and the contempt for those without power. His contempt for women. His contempt for democracy. And that’s just getting started. He’s an interesting thinker, but unfortunately he’s a bit of a crackpot.

[@itstimeforafuckingcrusade]

​@syourke3 But it doesn't really matter what you feel about him or what he wrote. He simply made an observation and wrote a way out. You haven't really provided a rebuttal to what he said, so you can't be taken seriously.

[@drm5513]

cant wait for the Alciviades' video

[@user-yj9pp4lh6v]

GRRRRRRrrrrrrrr.......... DAMN existence...... needs correction 💢💢💢💢💢💢💢💢 -Socrates

[@Florp777]

uohhh 😭

[@davidmouser596]

Was Socrates just annoying the ruling order or was he pointing out via reason the decadence that Nietzsche claims Athens was suffering?

[@user-sd3hq2dt5n]

The fact that almost all of the comments are aggressive towards nietszche realy talks for itself.

[@rohan7382]

I agree

[@chromosome2359]

Just because u can doesn’t mean you should, and through REASONING you see for yourself what u should and shouldn’t do. The reason we can reason is the fact that we have a brain developed to do such a thing. It’s serves a NATURAL purpose and aids us both the weak and strong

[@TheRealSteveMay]

If the argument is an effective weapon against "the strong", then intellect is the Achilles heel of the man of action. To be truly strong would mean having no such imbalance of competence and therefore no special weaknesses.

[@sanchitanand2973]

Greek society was strong and full of brave and motivated citizens who took action, and yet they became decadent enough for a weak philosopher like Socrates to destroy them. Surely it was not the powerful and violent Greeks who were responsible for their own downfall? 🤔

[@Mantis-ti5ve]

Lmao pretty sure Socrates didn't "destroy" the Greek world. This comment smacks of self-fellating redditor fedora tipping lmao. He was a professional shitposter that was lucky enough to be the first man to annoyingly ask "why though?" For every single aspect of life and live in a society (founded by the ideals and characteristics he hated and constantly questioned) that was connected enough to disseminate the information throughout history

[@Hstevenson69]

Arguing is just a waste of time, period. That's a nonstarter. All you can really do is put in the work in pursuit of the truth and maybe gain results if you're dedicated and lucky. You can have a conversation that has points of contrast that can be useful in order to broaden ones understanding. But if you find yourself arguing, then one or both parties have failed catastrophically in the pursuit of understanding the subject at hand.

[@brianjones9780]

You can't argue with a bullet, and no one can debate while a fist is in their face.

[@cb73]

Nietzsche drives me insane with this kind of stuff! He’s using reason and making an argument that reason and argumentation was invented by the weak

[@alexdavis1541]

I guess he would say that once you have lost the ability to act automatically and with confidence, you have have to argue it back. Personally I do not think this is possible. You can only ever succeed in producing a facsimile of something you have lost. No return to "innocence"

[@erikkr.r.m7380]

What do you think would happen if Nietzsche and Kierkegaard had a discusion?

[@derfelcadarn8230]

Nietzsche would have converted to Christianity, eventually. Or at least, he would have developed a more profound understanding and appreciation of the Christian faith. Kierkegaard has such a beautiful and noble soul that it's impossible to resist him for very long. What is particularly striking is that both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche grew up in Lutheran families and inherited a particular Protestant spirituality which would have been based on guilt, puritan morality etc. (my guess) Having worked out all the more negative aspects of such a spirituality by himself, while remaining faithful to the Christian faith, Kierkegaard could probably have helped Nietzsche work out his own ambivalences about Christianity. You can see it already with Nietzsche's reaction to Dostoevsky, who has deep affinites with Kierkegaard, although Dostoevsky had a more apocalyptic temperament. Nietzsche is a brilliant writer and thinker, but you can definitely sense the deep pain he was in for most of his life, loosing his father at such a young age, and fearing always that he had inherited the disease that killed his father. The similarities between Nietzsche and Dostoevsky's Raskolnikov are especially striking: the horse scene; the early death of Raskolnikov's father; Raskolnikov's fascination with Napoleon and Mohammed as "superior men" and "higher natures" and his prematurely sketched proto-Nietzschean theories; his hidden resentment against his mother and sister etc. The resemblances are absolutely uncanny. It is even more uncanny when you realize that Dostoevsky published Crime and Punishment more than twenty years before Nietzsche's breakdown -- and that they, Nietzsche and Raskolnikov, were the same age at the time of the book's release (both in their early twenties)! But Dostoevsky is an uncomparably deeper psychologist than Nietzsche. In a way, you could say that he contains Nietzsche (as much as he contains Marx and Freud), more than Nietzsche contains him. At the end of the day, a Dostoevskyan reading of Nietzsche is more useful and fruitful than a Nietzschean reading of Dostoevsky. My humble two cents. EDIT: Now that I think about it, I wonder if Kierkegaard would not have been to Nietszche what Sonya was to Raskolnikov. There's this otherwordly purity to Kierkegaard's writing at times, that it's difficult to not envisage such a parallel.

[@pasirella9242]

@@derfelcadarn8230 🤣

[@bluewater454]

Reason is not weakness. It is what separates us from animals.

[@terranman4702]

"No I have no arguments but I could kick your ass." Genius .....

[@rincemind8369]

Doubt is the only window to the light of truth in an otherwise darkened house.

[@mat7083]

Wait. Didn’t you already make this video?

[@Acoustic-Rabbit-Hole]

Actually, this sort of confirmed my Catholicism and gives me more self-love. Instead of constantly acting in self-sacrifice, I can be a little more selfish and tyrannical; not because I rejected Socrtates, but because my will and strength will always be tempered by God, that I might not stop over someone's life or boundaries in HIS name. Christianity could be the Happy Medium-point.

[@Shadowmourne07]

I came to this conclusion just by pure observation. Kinda funny how fundamental truths eventually reveal themselves to those that ponder