Why Nietzsche Hated English Philosophy

Support us on Patreon, get access to exclusive videos:

OUR ANALYSES:

Music used:
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License

[Wahid_]

Great video! BTW, in Dostoevsky's crime&punishment we saw a FAILED ÜBERMENSCH (Raskolnikov)
(traits like intellectual arrogance and a desire to transcend law.)

[rinkadink]

as an English man, I really enjoyed your video, but had to stop half way through, because the cricket match got on the way again.. 😊

[gerardlabeouf]

you make amazing videos damn you a nietzsche expert as a philosophy student it's really great having youtubers like you

[shaunmclorie]

Astoundingly great video as always my friend

[carlharmeling]

Nietzsche’s critique of the English was due, I believe, to their lack of spirituality and their strictly materialistic and utilitarian approach towards philosophy. Spirituality and psychology are closely linked and Nietzsche was very much concerned with psychology. He called it the queen of the sciences.

[gonfreecss]

This channel deserves to have so much more eyes on it. I love the dedication you have to your script, as well as your voice. It just fits so well in my opinion. If view count were tied to video quality, this channel would be on the trending page every upload with upwards of tens of millions of views.

[Over-Boy]

Please make a video on Nietzsche and Fredrick the II of the Holy Roman Empire.

[dsckyci]

Why don't you make videos on the relation between nietzsche and postmodernism

[barneystafford]

Nietzsche, bro. Part of being an atheist is realising that "Gods morality" was just invented by humans.

[-Eckhart]

5:50 Victorian thinkers railed against the personification of God, not against God. This is in turn Schleiermacher and/or Hardenberg. God is not rejected, merely remythologised.

[pilimsf]

Nietzsche phillosophy was really to disagree with everyone

[chrislusk]

At 18:50 a painting of 3 women appears. Who's it by, and what's it called?

And what about the painting of the red jester at 19:51?

[newperve]

So basically Nietzsche is saying "You can't keep the conclusion because the original premises you used to come to it are wrong.". But that's a basic logically error. The fact that a conclusion can be arrived at by invalid premises doesn't mean it can't be arrived at by valid premises. Saying "Well my original reason for believing X is untrue, so X can't be true." is just wrong. If that were true then any lunatic making obviously incorrect statements about why the government is conspiring would invalidate all evidence that the government conspires. A psychic claiming I am a murderer would immediate prove my innocence no matter how many guns and DNA traces are found in my locker. It's just not good philosophy.

[andykerkhofs]

What is the 'Kantian world-in-itself'?

In Kant's philosophy there is the notion of the 'thing-in-itself', of which Kant explicitly states that all we can say about it is that it exists.
The whole essence of this concept lies in the fact that we cannot know anything more about it.

[mrmarkjames]

‘don’t throw the baby out with the bath water,

[deanedge]

Very interesting. A quintessentially English public intellectual Tom Holland in Dominion (essentially a work of Christian apologetics) endorses Nietzsches critique of English "liberalism" arguing it applies to new generation aetheists - the abolition of superstition is a Christian methodology; though he is far too fastidious to deal with Nietzsche's ubermensch ideas except to catgegorise them as dangerous.

[jjlowrey]

Whenever I revisit Nietzsche, I'm always pleasantly surprised to discover that there's much more to learn from him.

From my experience, there's a lot of prior knowledge needed to understand Nietzsche fully. I credit my developing perspective of his philosophy to my deepening understanding of areas that, I believe, he certainly comprehended.

Do you think it's best to acquire knowledge before engaging with his work, or is revisiting him from time to time as I grow the best way to tackle his philosophy?

I've only read On the Genealogy of Morality and I'd like to really dive into his work. I've watched many lectures and videos on his ideas, but I'm sure it's best to go to the source itself.

[richard_d_bird]

when he says god doesn't exist today, does he think god used to exist? if god never really existed, then morality was never the product of god in the first place. so if morality was created without a god in the past, and if morality is being defined today without a god, what's his problem with that. rather than dreaming about some unspecified evolutionary leap into some kind of imgainary super man, you might just hope there's an increasing recognition of the social utility of morals, without needing religious mythology to justify it

[jacekmiksza]

This sort of morality, Christian or otherwise, is a pseudo one, because it comes from fear of punishment and not from wisdom and compassion without expecting any rewards at all.

[michaeldillon]

The udea if living the sane life over and over again sounds like a very scary episode of ' One Step Beyond ' to me 😱