Nietzsche: Only Losers Complain

SUPPORT US ON PATREON:

WATCH:

OUR ANALYSES:

Why do people complain? And why do people seem to derive some kind of pleasure from the act of complaining? Why does the simple act of blaming society, the world, or even yourself, for some kind of perceived injustice, seem to blow off steam?
These are questions that occupied Nietzsche, who sought to formulate a psychological framework to answer them.

First we’re going to take a look at a paragraph from Twilight of the Idols which gives us an incomplete, but well-written answer. If the title of this video strikes you as provocative or sensational, rest assured that the contents of Twilight of the Idols are much worse. The quote at the start of the video is a good indication of this.

Nietzsche investigates the psychological type of the “complainer”, through the lens of two archetypes: the anarchist and the Christian.

When dealing with Twilight of the Idols, it’s important to keep in mind that this work is simply very radical in nature, that Nietzsche generally doesn’t bother to be precise. He’s looking to impart some philosophical concepts of his in little linguistic bombs. An entire chapter is entitled “Maxims and Arrows”, sometimes translated as “maxims and missiles.” This is one of many indications that show us Nietzsche is trying to hit us with short bursts of insight which leave little room for nuance. The many allusions to “hammers” in this work are another example.

That’s why we shouldn’t let ourselves be bothered by the precise formulations in this work but rather try to unravel the underlying thought behind the words. We can avail ourselves of other works, and we will look at The Genealogy of Morals for further clarification, to flesh out the arguments in a more nuanced way.

we can explore the psychology of two types of complainers: the Christian and the anarchist. These are archetypical examples who serve as a stand-in for all types of other complainers. Nietzsche is fond of using this technique to criticise a behaviour, an idea, or even an entire philosophy and view of life: construct an archetype which has the essential qualities of the thing he wants to criticize, and then perform a psychological analysis of that type.

So what are these essential qualities? Well, first of all, surely, someone who complains must complain about something.

The main difference between the anarchist slash socialist and the Christian, is the object of scorn.

The anarchist blames others, or society, for his bad lot in life. The Christian hates himself.

What function does complaining serve then? Like other forms of ressentiment, another such Nietzschean concept, the act of complaining temporarily gives people a rush of power. For a brief moment, you can allow yourself to feel superior. The anarchist temporarily exalts himself above society, and the Christian, by acknowledging his suffering, feels himself closer to God. In effect, it’s a tiny dose of revenge, a quick hit of a feeling of fleeting superiority. It’s all about will to power.

This video is sponsored by AtlasVPN.

[WeltgeistYT]

Thank you for watching. We have more Nietzsche coming up so please subscribe if you don't want to miss it.

[satnamo]

Every poor devil gets some pleasures from scolding because it gives him a little intoxication of power since every complaint contains a small dose of revenge.

[creamrising]

I was once told that complaining was "complying". I found myself complaining a lot less after that.

[nicknorizadeh]

Very insightful! I never knew complaining about my lot in life stemmed from so much weakness. Having suffered from an anxiety disorder I find it easy to complain about factors beyond my control (such as genes, brain chemistry etc) not realizing this is a sign of weakness.

[ChairmanMeow]

That transition into the sponsored segment was too cool for such a nerdy channel. Love it. 😆

[michaelreeves]

I was complaining yesterday. I was with resentment. The only type of rebellion I can afford as a slave.

[paulheinrichdietrich]

2:54 Lol. I am not so sure about that, especially if we consider that he wrote voluminously about his weaknessess including all manner of infirmities both physical and psycological. We would not think of him as a person who "lived dangerously", not in the conventional sense of the word at least.

[guymcfox]

Nietzsche, as always, making me contemplate my life

[NihilRuina]

"Only losers complain"

Nietzsche's entire career ... Plato this, Christianity that, Pessimism, Decadence, Herd Morality, Laziness ..

[idoroi]

It is unbelievable how much depth this guy had! I don’t think we as a society fully understand his impact on reality.

[whalercumming]

In a country called The United States of America there are only two political parties that entirely exist to complain about each other. Spite and vindictiveness ruins every debate. The Americans decide who wins a debate beforehand by picking a favorite color tie ahead of the debate, which is more efficient than judging details and weighing merits.

[alancantu]

I found these insights to be quite useful for developing a new outlook on life. We always hear about how we should take the obstacles life throws at us as opportunities to grow, but only Nietzsche has expressed this sentiment effectively and in a way that is not cringey. The fact that this is a big reason why he did not consume alcohol makes it even more worthwhile. Once you see alcohol, weed, and other vices for the distractions they are, it’s hard to ever partake in them again.

[yummy]

Insightful and interestingly presented! It’s a shame many seem not to allow themselves to explore thought!

[SatanasExMachina]

My favorite philosopher, despite his concepts never being completely fleshed out. Oh well, we'll just have to savor what morsels of thought he left behind to us. Great work as always.

[danielhopkins]

" those who say " look at them, they abused me" can never obtain enlightenment"- Dhammapada

[Dan-udhz]

“Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman--a rope over an abyss.

A dangerous crossing, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous trembling and halting.

What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal: what is lovable in man is that he is an OVER-GOING and a DOWN-GOING.

I love those that know not how to live except as down-goers, for they are the over-goers.

I love the great despisers, because they are the great adorers, and arrows of longing for the other shore.

I love those who do not first seek a reason beyond the stars for going down and being sacrifices, but sacrifice themselves to the earth, that the earth of the Superman may hereafter arrive.

I love him who lives in order to know, and seeks to know in order that the Superman may hereafter live. Thus seeks he his own down-going.

I love him who labors and invents, that he may build the house for the Superman, and prepare for him earth, animal, and plant: for thus seeks he his own down-going.

I love him who loves his virtue: for virtue is the will to down-going, and an arrow of longing.

I love him who reserves no share of spirit for himself, but wants to be wholly the spirit of his virtue: thus walks he as spirit over the bridge.

I love him who makes his virtue his inclination and destiny: thus, for the sake of his virtue, he is willing to live on, or live no more.

I love him who desires not too many virtues. One virtue is more of a virtue than two, because it is more of a knot for one's destiny to cling to.

I love him whose soul is lavish, who wants no thanks and does not give back: for he always bestows, and desires not to keep for himself.

I love him who is ashamed when the dice fall in his favor, and who then asks: "Am I a dishonest player?"--for he is willing to succumb.

I love him who scatters golden words in advance of his deeds, and always does more than he promises: for he seeks his own down-going.

I love him who justifies the future ones, and redeems the past ones: for he is willing to succumb through the present ones.

I love him who chastens his God, because he loves his God: for he must succumb through the wrath of his God.

I love him whose soul is deep even in the wounding, and may succumb through a small matter: thus goes he willingly over the bridge.

I love him whose soul is so overfull that he forgets himself, and all things that are in him: thus all things become his down-going.

I love him who is of a free spirit and a free heart: thus is his head only the bowels of his heart; his heart, however, causes his down-going.

I love all who are like heavy drops falling one by one out of the dark cloud that lowers over man: they herald the coming of the lightning, and succumb as heralds.

Lo, I am a herald of the lightning, and a heavy drop out of the cloud: the lightning, however, is the SUPERMAN.--”

― Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

[privatesniffles]

Complaining oftentimes has an actual function which is critique in order to better the situation or at least pointing out that something needs to be changed, it also makes sense for someone with less perceived impact on the situation to blame someone or something he thinks has more impact.

However, what function does characterizing what you dislike under very specific "archetypes" i.e. straw-men and then taking them down via negative description i.e. ad-hominems while refusing to commit to any well defined interpretation serve? (he reminds me a lot of a certain lobster), is it not cognitive cowardice? is it not void of any actual useful function except for trying to paint what he values as positive and what he does not like as negative? is it not a pathetic show of a weak man trying to exert his will to power?, I hate Nietzsche's terms, I don't find them useful, but they describe him perfectly as he was projecting his own psychology onto everyone else.

And if complaining has a function which is to make suffering bearable and if people don't use it to hurt others how is that bad in any way? disregarding conscious experience and attributing all to a will to power is an indication of Nietzsche's own psychopathic mindset.

Nietzsche peeked under the veil and saw the horror of existence and its indifference towards conscious experience, instead of accepting that existence in itself might not be an inherent good he freaked out, went the cowardly way and denied the value of experience itself, instead framing all as a will to power and justifying any facet of life by it and the the same time criticizing anything he didn't like using it, making for an ill defined ideology easily used to justify psychopathic systems at the expense of the "weak".

And his ideology and many like his are constantly used to undermine moral and political progress and basic decency and empathy at societal scales, the same characterizations he used are often used by common people, political figures, public mental health professionals and lobsters to ignore the experience of people in bad situations and deny any actual help.

Personally as someone with congenital chronic pain and depression, as well as CPTSD arising from a very traumatic childhood Ive been denied disability, got insulted by public mental health care professionals and ignored by pain doctors using very similar language, always denied the opportunity for an actual dialogue.

[bigbr]

Your channel is underappreciated; I really enjoy it.

[DyseRLJ]

Is complaining about complainers not a complaint in of itself? Hypocrisy is inevitable

[wabechmann]

Sometimes "weakness" is a function of being different to the majority in a certain area. An example is autistic people. They're found to not actually be poor - i.e. weak - at communication, only poor at communicating with people who are not autistic. So, in a deep way, the fitness value of genes is not solely intrinsic, but also dependent on which other genes exist in the environment.

Also, sometimes the weak move might still be the strongest one you have, or that you're capable of in that moment.
Is it a sign of strength to passively accept a situation in which you find yourself in a powerless position? The strongest alternative might be against the law. The next best move might be complaining until you get a reaction.

This seems to be mostly about adapting to existing structures and being pragmatic, which is fine, but also of limited value. It is quite relativistic and conservative for the purpose of being conservative.
If you're too different in a certain area, you will fail unless strong in another complementary area/metric. If you're different in just the right amount, you will be an outlier in the positive sense, i. e. strong. Sometimes, if not often, that line is very fine.

If you're strong enough you won't have a need to demonstrate it by making the weak traits of others visible. You would not need to prove it because you know you're the strong one.
It is evident that many so-called strong people do, however, feel the need to do so.