Nietzsche’s Weakness

SUPPORT US ON PATREON:

WATCH:

OUR ANALYSES:

This video is meant to address some recurring themes in the comments of two videos we did earlier on Nietzsche’s critiques of Plato and Socrates respectively.

They’ve done pretty well and I highly recommend you check them out. Link in the description.

One common thread in these two videos centers around a word that comes back quite often in Nietzsche’s writings: weakness.

Nietzsche accused Plato of weakness because he is the prototypical philosopher who seeks refuge in a so-called Hinterwelt, a world of metaphysics that is ontologically removed from the material, physical world. Plato’s theory of forms is a great example of this Hinterwelt idea, and in Nietzsche’s view it is also the original one. Christianity’s Heaven, Kant’s thing-in-itself, and Schopenhauer’s Will, are, in Nietzsche’s view, not separate instances of different Hinterwelts, but rather evolutions of a general idea that started with Plato.

All of this to say, that for Nietzsche, dialectics, which is to say, having a discussion or an argument, is a sign of weakness.

On these two videos, the same type of comment pops up again and again. The main idea is always the same, so allow me to rephrase the general gist of them. These comments to read as follows:

“Nietzsche says arguing is for weak people but he spent his entire life writing books, which is just another way of making arguments. He himself is guilty of what he accuses others of doing. Doesn’t this make him weak as well?”

There are two charges here. The first is an accusation of hypocrisy. The second, is a charge of weakness.

Let’s look at the hypocrisy problem first.

There is definitely some truth to this: Nietzsche, especially in his later work, where the distinction between strong and weak becomes more important to his philosophy, thinks that arguing is a sign of decadence or weakness. The powerful don’t need to convince, they simply command.

But isn’t Nietzsche doing just that: trying to convince us of his philosophy?

Let’s take a closer look.

Should a philosopher practice what he preaches? Not all philosophers have the same answer to this question.

[WeltgeistYT]

If you thought Nietzsche was a hypocrite, has this video changed your mind? In any case, thank you for watching!
SUPPORT US ON PATREON:

[a.wenger]

“There is a false saying: “How can someone who can’t save himself save others?” Supposing I have the key to your chains, why should your lock and my lock be the same?”
- Friedrich Nietzsche, 1882 (unpublished notes)

[truekotek]

I think that Nietzsche being able to preserve through a miserable and hellish life and even to bring it forward with vitality and enthusiasm with his works - shows exactly how great of a strength he had. The strength to say "YES" to life, his Amor Fati. Truly an inspiring artist.

[courier]

Nietzsche had a profound diagnosis of the world in which he lived, and also a profound insight into how the species could potentially evolve. He was just a mirror I think. He wasn’t the overman, but I think he had a good intuition for the potential of humanity.

[jcrews]

I think with Nietzsche, contradiction is the very point of it all. And despite whatever personal weaknesses he may have had, it does not undercut the strength of the foundation of his philosophy. We might consider his forays into philosophy to be the expression of Nietzsche's own will to power. Indeed, one must be very powerful to lay waste to the entire schema of Western morality. A man who single-handedly broke his own chains of slave morality and led the way for potentially countless others to follow.

No one's ever gripped my attention quite like he can. And you do a wonderful job at expounding on his works.

[NihilRuina]

As Nietzsche said, the greeks must have suffered greatly to give way to such beauty.

And Nietzsche? How weak he must have felt to write in such a pursuit of power. The will to power.

"The task of painting the picture of life, however often poets and philosophers may pose it, is nonetheless senseless: even under the hands of the greatest painter-thinkers all that has ever eventuated is pictures and miniatures out of one life, namely their own – and nothing else is even possible"

"Drive, in psychology, an urgent basic need pressing for satisfaction, usually rooted in some physiological tension, deficiency, or imbalance (e.g., hunger and thirst) and impelling the organism to action"

The will to power is driven by ones lack of it. "For it is from the greatest of depths, that the highest must come to its heights"

[Bleakertube]

I had the thought that Nietzsche’s own contradictory nature would have been seen by Schopenhauer as evidence of the working of the Will. Despite his sickness or because of it the Will forces Nietzsche to go beyond and survive.

[tigerlilysoma]

He was sick his whole life and gave us his soul .... He is stronger than any of us can imagine. Nietzsche's strength is found all around us. He gave us the power he had, willingly. And asked only that we continue the work he started...

[frankchilds]

Thanks for this stimulating video. The reference to Freud reminded me that reading The Will To Power helped me find more insight than years of psychology and therapy! In the end we are all flawed and can only make the most of who we are and what we have!

[orri-bile]

On this topic I would recommend to read Nietzsche's letters, so we could see more deeply through the image he gave of himself (by reducing his sickness to an accident, not a part his true being). It is a fact that Nietzsche was aware of his own weaknesses and tryed to feel stronger. Although he committed, even more, the mistake he reproached Schopenhauer for: projecting the image of his personal longings and shortcomings onto the world. That's why I find true in Cioran's statement that Nietzsche (the man, not the prophet from the books) was a poor guy

[sudarshanravi]

All philosophers like to think of themselves as above and removed from the rest . And Neitzche was just another . There are many who are always more courageous than us, and many who are always more cowardly than us . it is only what the object of fear is, that differentiates us. but fear is common to all humans, and to all life itself . So to think of oneself as brave is just plain old pride . all of life fears for its existence . all of life fears pain and death . A soldier is no braver than a beggar . a soldier may be ready to die for his love of nation, but what he fears most is "what if this nation and people i love so much, dont love me back ? what if no one recognises how i am ready to give my life too " . A soldier doesnt identify with his body so much as he does with the idea of nation . so obviosuly death wont frighten him . Similarly a beggar doesnt care for insults, rejection and unrequited love, which a soldier so foolsihly cares about from his people . A beggar fears if he wont get his next meal . That is all life is . What we identify with most is what will cause most pain and also most pleasure if things go right . So nobody is more brave or more cowardly . All is void

[ramziabbyad]

What I like about Nietzsche is he tells us exactly what is on his mind. He reflects on many things, critiques everything it would seem. I have heard the philosopher on "carefree wandering" describe him as someone who wears many masks. Perhaps the first postmodernist, his critique feels all encompassing and yet very specific. When reading him, one can't help but feel like he is predicting his near future and our present.. One gets the impression that he is sensing something very deep about the future. Can you do a video on Nietzsche the prophet?

[fallsshine]

Interesting. I remember now that I found Nietzsche at the latter part of my own illness, Chronic fatigue, depression etc.
I had also before that decided to steer clear of doctors and take responsibility for curing myself.
After a few years I figured out the health stuff and cured it all, while exercising as if nothing was wrong.
But it was this very thing about Nietzsche that intuitively helped with my bad/decadent attitude and depression.
Using his writing and my experience of recovery, really gave me a strong instinct for flipping negative to positive and vice versa if I needed.
Sometimes it does not matter what is correct, only what is True(moral). Whatever it takes to grow strong, I could choose a perspective.
I suppose the "what does not kill me.." quote was the main inspiration. I applied it everywhere.
This is one of the most powerful gifts I received from Nietzsche's writing.

[Vectivuss]

Can't wait for the Thus Spoke Zarathustra series

[crizish]

Ecce Homo: Why I write such Good Books / "I am one thing, my writings are another matter.--"

[DonutGuard]

Nietzsche was at least strong enough to recognize that he was weak, and outlined the reasons why he was weak in hopes that someday others would not be weak like him.

Criticizing Nietzsche for being weak while he criticized others for being weak, ironically, is what a Sophist would do, and would likely make Nietzsche proud.

[davidsbarge]

WILL YOU PLEASE MAKE A VIDEO THAT EXPLORES NIETZSCHE'S RELATIONSHIP TO DOSTOEVSKY'S WORK AND WHAT REALIZATION MAY HAVE LED NIETZSCHE TO KISS A HORSE, CLEARLY RELATED TO THE HORSE IN DOSTOEVSKY'S NOVEL: CRIME AND PUNISHMENT

[fikriasrofi]

If they event meet in person, Plato would slam him to the ground 🤣

[SupermonkeyPlaysMC]

8:05

It takes one to know one; and thru this, colors may weave into spires of flame, bringing daybreak as a fading sunrise challenges the dark.

[alecmisra]

Hi Weltgeist, nice to see you covering this topic again. I think part of the problem is that the classical representation of Socrates breaks down into two parts, the dialectical side - which does indeed speak to the view of him as a decadent force. But there is also the Stoic or proto Stoic element associated with Socrates, which allows his legacy to be used as a critique of decadence in later philosophy, including I suppose Nietzsche as well. He was the fore runner of really unnerving ascetics such as Epictetus or the Cynics for example. Really I dont know how these two elements may be resolved. I suppose one can be ascetically inclined and yet still have a good time! It suggests also that an "idealist" is not also ipso facto a "life denier" as Nietzsche seems to suggest.
Another unrelated issue is Nietzsche's assumption that notions of the ideal and the transcendental must be fictional and thus anyone entertaining them must somehow be weak because unable to accept the "real". I personally think Nietzsche is simply wrong on this and that this is a dimension lacking in his philosophy though not in Socrates of course who speaks eloquently to it.