4 ms·
The very beginning of this lecture exposes it as complete rubbish. > Nietzsche thinks this book is gonna be wasted on most of you, but for his rightful readers
by skulk 2y ago
The very beginning of this lecture exposes it as complete rubbish.
> Nietzsche thinks this book is gonna be wasted on most of you, but for his rightful readers, it will free you to achieve greatness. Nietzsche wrote his books to cultivate what he called "higher men": people like Beethoven, Napoleon, and, Goethe. Now, before you get too excited, Nietzsche's got some bad news for you. Higher men are born to be higher men, they are born with noble aristocratic natures which he thinks is incredibly rare.
Okay, then why is this lecture about how to be an aristocrat if that's impossible for me, a common peasant? If Johnathan Bi truly believes this, shouldn't he lecturing me about how to be a serf and properly serve my aristocratic masters? (step 1: stop writing comments on HN and get back to work!) Nietzsche never intended to instruct people how to be great, he only sought to explain why things are the way they are. Claiming that "Genealogy" is a "guide" is silly at best.
It seems like he watched a YouTube video on Nietzschean philosophy and decided to build a self-help guru personality around it. I've watched a lot of Coffeezilla's self-help guru videos and this one is giving me the same vibe.
edit: heh, looks like this got kicked off the front page. Good.
- vinnyvichy 2y agoLooks like he got tripped up by the fine difference between arete and virtue. In Aristotelian philosophy, virtue is something you are born with but arete is something that is taught. (Accordingly, most peasants are born with virtue, although it might be hard for them to access arete). When put like that, it doesn't sound too off-putting, does it?
- skulk 2y agoSo you're saying everyone (or almost everyone) has the potential to be great, we just need to give them the opportunity. Maybe if we go a little farther and say no one, at birth, inherently deserves more opportun.. oops, we're back at egalitarianism.
- vinnyvichy 2y agoIt's hard to argue against equal opportunity egalitarianism, no? The real hard debate is rather over how to measure outcomes? (Consider free tuition, keeping pple in college/high school until they pass, assigning profs randomly to different schools etc.)
- skulk 2y agoThe whole lecture is a screed against egalitarianiam.
- vinnyvichy 2y agoSorry, did not mean to assign (much) merit to the lecture, although it might be worthwhile to read its transcript in order study how exponents of Nietzsche might get tripped up (in subtle ways[0], as well in more obvious ways, e.g., by their own enthusiasm) [0]he calls some people "sick", which means a cure is at least imaginable, yes? EDIT: in "Beyond Good & Evil", the occurrences of the combination "Slave morality" are much more numerous than "Slave" on its own. Not so in this guy's lecture. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sklavenmoral https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sklavenmoral
- squircle 2y agoUltimately, the author concludes: > So let me end our lecture by expressing both my deep indebtedness, my deep gratitude for Nietzsche as well as my ultimate dissatisfaction with him in the following way: > I've been too convinced by Nietzsche to be convinced by the rhetoric of the sick. In spite of "beyond good and evil", Nietzsche was himself caught between Hebraism/Hellenism. > Okay, then why is this lecture about how to be an aristocrat if that's impossible for me, a common peasant? What if you suddenly found yourself, through luck or hard work, in a gentrified position?
- skulk 2y ago> What if you suddenly found yourself, through luck or hard work, in a gentrified position? Then I would certainly not be listening to lectures by Johnathan Bi. I would definitely read and love Nietzsche though.