Future Superman

[G L Wilson]

Is Nietzsche's Superman not a guardian, a guardian of a tradition? Is ego the only thing? Must he not pass it on? Must he not let go?

[Red-Headed]

I thought that Nietzsche believed that we were all potentially the Übermensch, unfortunately, he forgot to tell us how to achieve it.

[G L Wilson]

I thought that Nietzsche believed that we were all potentially the Übermensch, unfortunately, he forgot to tell us how to achieve it.

It's all good and well that he didn't.

[Panglossian]

What d'you mean "future Superman" - I am the Superman!! :ihih:

N wrote: "Man is the bridge between ape and Superman" (something like that).

Imagine a world full of Supermen. A world full of wannabe Supermen. It's a nightmare vision really. Who would decide who is a Superman. How would these so-called Supermen treat those who don't fit the bill. What about women. Is there a Superwoman.

I haven't bothered including question marks in the above because these questions are not worth answering. Nietzsche was a fascinating character, and the history of his thought processes shine a light on many crucial comprehensions. But in the end he was just another quasi-religious philosopher who fell into the trap of trying to envision the perfect human being. In other words: his own originality became more important to him than truth. You can't dismantle one system of idealism (Christiandom) and then go halfway to replacing it with another idealistic vision, can you?

Having said that, I do think his "the will to power" is a good formula that helps us understand (psychologically) the ins-and-outs of human motivation.

[Red-Headed]

N wrote: "Man is the bridge between ape and Superman" (something like that).

That's because he thought we were still evolving physiologically & psychologically. He thought we could eventually rise above the duality of good & evil, but in a non-transcendent way. Unfortunately, this has been misinterpreted.


Imagine a world full of Supermen. A world full of wannabe Supermen. It's a nightmare vision really. Who would decide who is a Superman.

If the world was full of supermen, wouldn't everyone be equally super?


How would these so-called Supermen treat those who don't fit the bill.

Irrelevant in a world where everybody is super.


What about women. Is there a Superwoman. (?)

I believe Übermensch is not gender specific in German. Just as the noun 'man' wasn't in English at one time.


I haven't bothered including question marks in the above because these questions are not worth answering.

Ah, so that's the reason.


But in the end he was just another quasi-religious philosopher who fell into the trap of trying to envision the perfect human being.

No, you've made the classic (& often it seems) mistake of confusing Nietzsche with Hitler. It's easy to do I suppose, from a distance (of around a thousand kilometres I should imagine) they do sound almost identical.


In other words: his own originality became more important to him than truth.

Have you actually read any Nietzsche?

*Hint; Nietzsche didn't write Mein Kampfe*


You can't dismantle one system of idealism (Christiandom) and then go halfway to replacing it with another idealistic vision, can you?

He didn't like Christianity, but who does? He was a bit of a dionysiac on the side.


Having said that, I do think his "the will to power" is a good formula that helps us understand (psychologically) the ins-and-outs of human motivation.

As I see it, Wille zur Macht was not about motivation but Nietzsche's belief that we could one day overcome moral duality. It needed an act of will, but a non-transcendent one. As I said earlier, unfortunately Nietzsche didn't know or explain how we could realistically achieve this.

[G L Wilson]

How pessimism could be mistaken for idealism beats me. Nietzsche was not deluded.

[Panglossian]

No, you've made the classic (& often it seems) mistake of confusing Nietzsche with Hitler. It's easy to do I suppose, from a distance (of around a thousand kilometres I should imagine) they do sound almost identical.

Have you actually read any Nietzsche?

*Hint; Nietzsche didn't write Mein Kampfe*
Who are you, the local wind-up merchant. These comments are ludicrous. I never mentioned Hitler, nor was referring to Hitler in any way.

[Red-Headed]

Who are you, the local wind-up merchant. These comments are ludicrous. I never mentioned Hitler, nor was referring to Hitler in any way.

So why did you post?:

"Imagine a world full of Supermen. A world full of wannabe Supermen. It's a nightmare vision really. Who would decide who is a Superman. How would these so-called Supermen treat those who don't fit the bill. What about women. Is there a Superwoman."

This has nothing to do with Nietzsche.

[Darcy88]

Nietzsche re-inverted the traditional value scheme. Perhaps there are subtleties to his thought that I don't fully grasp, but to me his morality is in essence a Homeric morality. Its an anti-christian morality - against meekness, humility, pity, ect. That does not make it beyond good and evil. It makes it evil, if evil is taken in its traditional Christian context.

He called Caesar the most "beautiful type," and as a classicist he knew who Caesar was. That to me says a lot about where Nietzsche stood. He also loved Machiavelli.

I don't see the superman concept as in any way mysterious or esoteric. Odysseus was a superman. The superman is Homeric, he's pre/post-christian.

Granted there's more to it than that, but at bottom Nietzsche was all about getting beyond Christian morality. You read Genealogy of Morals and its obvious which type Nietzsche sides with - the master.

There's also an aesthetic dimension. The Superman could be called a Homeric artist.

To me its all balderdash now. Lose the essence of "slave morality" and you lose your humanity. Nietzsche's pride was monstrous. And when you dispense almost entirely with tradition, that's all you're really left with - pride.

[Red-Headed]

Nietzsche re-inverted the traditional value scheme. Perhaps there are subtleties to his thought that I don't fully grasp, but to me his morality is in essence a Homeric morality. Its an anti-christian morality - against meekness, humility, pity, ect. That does not make it beyond good and evil. It makes it evil, if evil is taken in its traditional Christian context.

Nietzsche tended to contradict himself a lot & over time certain concepts eventually emerged that were more constant. It is not so much that he was 'against' meekness & humility but the understanding of who or what invented the slave morality & what its purpose was. He understood that Christianity is the epitome of the slave morality. The real evil, according to Nietszche is the essence of what the aristocratic mentality originally termed 'good' which is used to subdue the will of the ordinary people (the Herd) by their own misunderstanding of what the concepts of good & evil actually entail. He was almost certainly right about this as all organised religions subdue the masses with their own peculiar subjective views of dualistic morality.


I don't see the superman concept as in any way mysterious or esoteric.

Neither did Nietzsche.


Odysseus was a superman.

No he wasn't, he was just a crafty mortal, if he ever existed.


The superman is Homeric, he's pre/post-christian.

I am not so sure the superman can be both Homeric & post-Christian.


Granted there's more to it than that, but at bottom Nietzsche was all about getting beyond Christian morality.

Of course it is. Christianity is the slave morality in action. Liberation is near.


Lose the essence of "slave morality" and you lose your humanity.

No, lose the the slave morality & rise above the duality. That is the essence of the superman.


Nietzsche's pride was monstrous.

According to him, so was god's. God is dead, long live the superman!


And when you dispense almost entirely with tradition, that's all you're really left with - pride.

... and the slave morality.

[Des Essientes]

Nietzsche didn't believe reading his philosophy could bring about the coming of the superman. He believed that the superman would come from atavism. The most recent person Nietsche cited as having been a sort of superman was Napoleon Bonaparte, but Nietzsche stipulated that Napoleon was a synthesis of both super-human and inhuman and so he was not a complete superman. The atavism in Napoleon's case was that of the noble classical Roman ideal made flesh. Nietzsche in a truly 19th century eugenical mode of thinking believed the superman will be the result of fortunate breeding.

[Darcy88]

[QUOTE=Red-Headed;1061229]Nietzsche tended to contradict himself a lot & over time certain concepts eventually emerged that were more constant. It is not so much that he was 'against' meekness & humility but the understanding of who or what invented the slave morality & what its purpose was. He understood that Christianity is the epitome of the slave morality. The real evil, according to Nietszche is the essence of what the aristocratic mentality originally termed 'good' which is used to subdue the will of the ordinary people (the Herd) by their own misunderstanding of what the concepts of good & evil actually entail. He was almost certainly right about this as all organised religions subdue the masses with their own peculiar subjective views of dualistic morality.

You think that the wills of Buddha and Christ and other such figures were subdued? Will is such a silly term in this context. Certain of their appetites were perhaps subdued. And they also drew limits. They had principles. Love, compassion, humility, ect.

And Nietzsche was against meekness and pity and humility. He mocked them, disdained them. The texts clearly show this.

And contrary to what you say here - Nietzsche didn't give a damn about the herd. The evil to him was not that slave morality would subdue the wills of the herd. Rather, he worried that slave morality would tame exceptional people. In some points I think he actually lauds the effects of slave morality, crediting it with making the herd more tolerable.

His worry is especially hilarious when you consider that a large proportion of history's most exceptional persons were those who came closest to embodying slave morality.

Neither did Nietzsche.



No he wasn't, he was just a crafty mortal, if he ever existed.

In the same way that thinkers refer to fictional characters quite often in order to illustrate a point, that's how I was referring to Odysseus.

I am not so sure the superman can be both Homeric & post-Christian.

I was clearly using the phrase "Homeric" in a loosely descriptive sense, not confined to any specific time. An Achilles-like individual could be born tomorrow. Such a man would be both post-christian and Homeric. To me Homeric and Master are inter-changeable, they mean the same thing to me. Perhaps this is a simplification, I don't know.

Of course it is. Christianity is the slave morality in action. Liberation is near.

What does liberation from slave morality look like exactly? I'm curious. Enlighten me. If it goes beyond slave morality, if it goes beyond humility and meekness and pity, then what you have is a grotesque and inhuman specimen, to my mind at least.


No, lose the the slave morality & rise above the duality. That is the essence of the superman.

Ok there Raskolnikov.

According to him, so was god's. God is dead, long live the superman!

God is dead and so the moral burden falls on us alone. It is not lightened, not removed.

[G L Wilson]

What does liberation from slave morality look like exactly?

Freedom.

[Darcy88]

Freedom.

There is no such thing. We are not Gods. Sometimes we can be free. Sometimes. If you are free all the time you slip into a state of madness or criminality or sheer idiocy.

We are human beings. Nietzsche forgot this.

Try living free. Shed every skin, dispense with "slave morality," live for aesthetics and power and truth - yes I include truth - and see what you become.

Its like looking at the sun. You cannot stare. I'm sure someone out there must know what I'm talking about.

Rimbaud figured this out.

[G L Wilson]

There is no such thing. We are not Gods. Sometimes we can be free. Sometimes. If you are free all the time you slip into a state of madness or criminality or sheer idiocy.

We are human beings. Nietzsche forgot this.

Try living free. Shed every skin, dispense with "slave morality," live for aesthetics and power and truth - yes I include truth - and see what you become.

Its like looking at the sun. You cannot stare. I'm sure someone out there must know what I'm talking about.

Rimbaud figured this out.

Rimbaud figured nothing out as far as I can tell.

[Darcy88]

Rimbaud figured nothing out as far as I can tell.

Don't dodge the point I'm trying to make. Tell me about your idea of freedom. Give me something specific and substantial. You said that liberation from slave morality = freedom. What does that even mean? The freedom to commit murder? The freedom to watch as others commit murder?

If you take Nietzsche's freedom outside the realm of solitude, carry it with you down the mountain-slope, back amongst the people, then you're lost, then you're a madman or a monster or an idiot.

To live is to submit to a rule. What is Nietzsche's rule? The individual. PRIDE.

Nietzsche took the elevated, frenzied state/experience of art and revelation and wanted to make it a permanent way of life. That's the superman. He really wanted to be Dionysius. He wanted to be divine. But we are merely human, all-too human, each and every one of us - however exceptional.

[G L Wilson]

Don't dodge the point I'm trying to make. Tell me about your idea of freedom. Give me something specific and substantial. You said that liberation from slave morality = freedom. What does that even mean? The freedom to commit murder? The freedom to watch as others commit murder?

If you take Nietzsche's freedom outside the realm of solitude, carry it with you down the mountain-slope, back amongst the people, then you're lost, then you're a madman or a monster or an idiot.

To live is to submit to a rule. What is Nietzsche's rule? The individual. PRIDE.

Nietzsche took the elevated, frenzied state/experience of art and revelation and wanted to make it a permanent way of life. That's the superman. He really wanted to be Dionysius. He wanted to be divine. But we are merely human, all-too human, each and every one of us - however exceptional.

Nietzsche wanted to be a god? - that's rich. He wanted nothing fake, simple.

[Red-Headed]

You think that the wills of Buddha and Christ and other such figures were subdued? Will is such a silly term in this context. Certain of their appetites were perhaps subdued. And they also drew limits. They had principles. Love, compassion, humility, ect.

Nietzsche actually existed & was an actual person. Buddha may have been an actual Indian prince, however there is no evidence for Christ, historical or otherwise. The gospel accounts were written hundreds of years later than the alleged 'events' & would only be considered hearsay in a court of law. It seems to me that you are more interested in the imaginary & the mythological than the actual.


And Nietzsche was against meekness and pity and humility. He mocked them, disdained them. The texts clearly show this.

That's your interpretation of the 'pity' in Nietzsche, not an original one either. It depends on translation & interpretation. The Nazis had their interpretations as well, like you, they cherry-picked what they wanted to believe. Nietzsche was quite right to mock the 'meekness' & 'humility' of the slave morality though. Meekness & humility are forced on the herd BY the slave morality of organised religion, especially Christianity. Nietzsche had pity for the human condition.


And contrary to what you say here - Nietzsche didn't give a damn about the herd. The evil to him was not that slave morality would subdue the wills of the herd. Rather, he worried that slave morality would tame exceptional people. In some points I think he actually lauds the effects of slave morality, crediting it with making the herd more tolerable.

He wasn't wrong though was he? The slave morality of Christianity has tamed exceptional people throughout history. Besides, if he didn't care for the herd, why did he write anything?


His worry is especially hilarious when you consider that a large proportion of history's most exceptional persons were those who came closest to embodying slave morality.

Like who?


I was clearly using the phrase "Homeric" in a loosely descriptive sense, not confined to any specific time.

Apparently not clear enough.


An Achilles-like individual could be born tomorrow.

You realise that Achilles was a mythological character right?


Such a man would be both post-christian and Homeric. To me Homeric and Master are inter-changeable, they mean the same thing to me. Perhaps this is a simplification, I don't know.

Well, if I meet any Achaian mythological characters descended from a union between a nymph & royalty, you'll be the first to know.


What does liberation from slave morality look like exactly? I'm curious. Enlighten me. If it goes beyond slave morality, if it goes beyond humility and meekness and pity, then what you have is a grotesque and inhuman specimen, to my mind at least.

No, you have a species that has potential. This idea that Nietzsche was proposing a form of humanity that had no empathy or wished to develop a race of 'masters' to rule as overlords is Nazi ideology, not Nietzsche. He wasn't even anti-Semitic or nationalistic.


Ok there Raskolnikov.

Another character from literature. Raskolnikov is a character in a Dostoyevsky novel, no more real than mythological Greeks. Plus, Dostoyevsky deliberately used the character of Raskolnikov in 'Crime & Punishment' as an example of misunderstood (particularly by the Russian zapadnik westernisers) western nihilism. Nietzsche was a real person. You can distinguish between reality & fantasy can't you? One of the definitions of schizophrenia is not being able to distinguish between the real & the imaginary. Nietzsche seemed to believe that was a problem that humanity as a whole was suffering from.


God is dead and so the moral burden falls on us alone. It is not lightened, not removed.

Yes, we can be better than god. Because we can rise above the duality god imposed on us as a species.

[Darcy88]

Nietzsche actually existed & was an actual person. Buddha may have been an actual Indian prince, however there is no evidence for Christ, historical or otherwise. The gospel accounts were written hundreds of years later than the alleged 'events' & would only be considered hearsay in a court of law. It seems to me that you are more interested in the imaginary & the mythological than the actual."

And Nietzsche was not interested in the mythological? Thinkers don't frequently refer to imaginary characters in order to explore philosophical ideas?

And Jesus did not exist? That's ridiculous. Scholars, non-chrisitian scholars, would disagree with you.

And the imaginary and the mythological are the actual. They are, they exist, therefore they are actual. You seem to give slight value to the fruits of human imagination. Such a view is a little out of place on a literature forum, no?

"That's your interpretation of the 'pity' in Nietzsche, not an original one either. It depends on translation & interpretation. The Nazis had their interpretations as well, like you, they cherry-picked what they wanted to believe. Nietzsche was quite right to mock the 'meekness' & 'humility' of the slave morality though. Meekness & humility are forced on the herd BY the slave morality of organised religion, especially Christianity. Nietzsche had pity for the human condition."

Your interpretation is funny to me. You think the herd should not be meek and humble? You sound like some kind of egalitarian Nietzschean - a contradiction in terms.

Your interpretation of Nietzsche is off. Slave morality did not make the herd the way it is. The herd already existed, a weak, lowly mass. Then some shepherds, some "holy men" came along and organized them. Took the qualities they already possessed and told them that those qualities were not bad but instead good, were virtues as opposed to deficiencies. If you take away slave morality all you do is deprive the herd of its source of pride. Slave morality reflects the state of the herd, not the other way around. According to Nietzsche at least.


Lose the meekness and humility. Then what do you have? Vanity and aggression. An untamed herd running rampant. I doubt Nietzsche would have endorsed that. And he didn't. The herd did not concern him. All he truly cared about were the great men, the artists and men of thought or action who turn the wheel of history.

"He wasn't wrong though was he? The slave morality of Christianity has tamed exceptional people throughout history. Besides, if he didn't care for the herd, why did he write anything?"

He wrote for the exceptions, for the few. He often despised the overwhelming majority of mankind. He considered them small and unclean. Read your Nietzsche. You pose as an expert and yet it seems you barely grasp the man's thought at all. Read what his thoughts were on slavery.

And we have to be tame. Its called civilization. In solitude you can be free. Amongst people - not so much. If we lost "slave morality" the world would tear itself to shreds.

"Like who?"

Martin Luther King. Gandhi. Lao Tse. Buddha. Nelson Mandela. W.H Auden. Socrates. But I suppose such individuals are merely enervated, subdued specimens in your eyes. Weak. Hahaha. I love that.


"Apparently not clear enough."



"You realise that Achilles was a mythological character right?"

Yes I do. Do you deny the relevance and profundity, do you deny the very TRUTH, of literature? Nietzsche learned a lot from books.

"Well, if I meet any Achaian mythological characters descended from a union between a nymph & royalty, you'll be the first to know."

You just lost the right to ever use the adjective "faustian."

"No, you have a species that has potential. This idea that Nietzsche was proposing a form of humanity that had no empathy or wished to develop a race of 'masters' to rule as overlords is Nazi ideology, not Nietzsche. He wasn't even anti-Semitic or nationalistic."

The species as a whole does not have potential, according to Nietzsche. Only a few superior individuals do.



"Another character from literature. Raskolnikov is a character in a Dostoyevsky novel, no more real than mythological Greeks. Plus, Dostoyevsky deliberately used the character of Raskolnikov in 'Crime & Punishment' as an example of misunderstood (particularly by the Russian zapadnik westernisers) western nihilism. Nietzsche was a real person. You can distinguish between reality & fantasy can't you? One of the definitions of schizophrenia is not being able to distinguish between the real & the imaginary. Nietzsche seemed to believe that was a problem that humanity as a whole was suffering from."

Again. You are on a literature forum. You deny that literary characters are real? They are not real in the flesh and blood, occupying physical space, sense of real. But they are real. Indeed, it could be argued that such characters are more real. Art is not real?! Art is the realest of the real.

"Yes, we can be better than god. Because we can rise above the duality god imposed on us as a species."

"Better than God." All right. Good luck with that.

[QUOTE=G L Wilson;1061592]Nietzsche wanted to be a god? - that's rich. He wanted nothing fake, simple.

Indeed. He wanted nothing "fake." But only a god could live with nothing "fake." And calling traditional morality "fake" is silly. There's nothing fake about compassion.

We are human, we have limitations. Nietzsche was conscious enough and courageous enough to recognize and then endeavour to overcome those limitations. He tried. He did not succeed. To be alive is to define and limit oneself. Humility is essential.

You still won't explain what freedom means to you.

[Buh4Bee]

Living like that destroys the self, even if one is exceptional. One will never be happy this way, because the searching for IT will never end and the beast will never be satiated. Forget Christianity, it's one more box to pigeon hole. Look inward and see that there is hope there and the need to be superman will subside. This kind of soul is uneasy, a fundamental flaw of those that need to seek power, and find greed and corruption instead. Be free, but be at peace with how you choose to live. This is the secret that no one understands. When your soul is at conflict you war with the world and yourself.

I still need to read Nietzsche, so that's all I'm going to say for now.

[G L Wilson]

Indeed. He wanted nothing "fake." But only a god could live with nothing "fake." And calling traditional morality "fake" is silly. There's nothing fake about compassion.

We are human, we have limitations. Nietzsche was conscious enough and courageous enough to recognize and then endeavour to overcome those limitations. He tried. He did not succeed. To be alive is to define and limit oneself. Humility is essential.

You still won't explain what freedom means to you.

To be humane is essential, nothing else.


Living like that destroys the self, even if one is exceptional. One will never be happy this way, because the searching for IT will never end and the beast will never be satiated. Forget Christianity, it's one more box to pigeon hole. Look inward and see that there is hope there and the need to be superman will subside. This kind of soul is uneasy, a fundamental flaw of those that need to seek power, and find greed and corruption instead. Be free, but be at peace with how you choose to live. This is the secret that no one understands. When your soul is at conflict you war with the world and yourself.

I still need to read Nietzsche, so that's all I'm going to say for now.

The Unconflicted are immoral.

[Red-Headed]

[QUOTE=Red-Headed;1061645]Nietzsche actually existed & was an actual person. Buddha may have been an actual Indian prince, however there is no evidence for Christ, historical or otherwise. The gospel accounts were written hundreds of years later than the alleged 'events' & would only be considered hearsay in a court of law. It seems to me that you are more interested in the imaginary & the mythological than the actual."

And Nietzsche was not interested in the mythological? Thinkers don't frequently refer to imaginary characters in order to explore philosophical ideas?

And Jesus did not exist? That's ridiculous. Scholars, non-chrisitian scholars, would disagree with you.

And the imaginary and the mythological are the actual. They are, they exist, therefore they are actual. You seem to give slight value to the fruits of human imagination. Such a view is a little out of place on a literature forum, no?

"That's your interpretation of the 'pity' in Nietzsche, not an original one either. It depends on translation & interpretation. The Nazis had their interpretations as well, like you, they cherry-picked what they wanted to believe. Nietzsche was quite right to mock the 'meekness' & 'humility' of the slave morality though. Meekness & humility are forced on the herd BY the slave morality of organised religion, especially Christianity. Nietzsche had pity for the human condition."

Your interpretation is funny to me. You think the herd should not be meek and humble? You sound like some kind of egalitarian Nietzschean - a contradiction in terms.

Your interpretation of Nietzsche is off. Slave morality did not make the herd the way it is. The herd already existed, a weak, lowly mass. Then some shepherds, some "holy men" came along and organized them. Took the qualities they already possessed and told them that those qualities were not bad but instead good, were virtues as opposed to deficiencies. If you take away slave morality all you do is deprive the herd of its source of pride. Slave morality reflects the state of the herd, not the other way around. According to Nietzsche at least.


Lose the meekness and humility. Then what do you have? Vanity and aggression. An untamed herd running rampant. I doubt Nietzsche would have endorsed that. And he didn't. The herd did not concern him. All he truly cared about were the great men, the artists and men of thought or action who turn the wheel of history.

"He wasn't wrong though was he? The slave morality of Christianity has tamed exceptional people throughout history. Besides, if he didn't care for the herd, why did he write anything?"

He wrote for the exceptions, for the few. He often despised the overwhelming majority of mankind. He considered them small and unclean. Read your Nietzsche. You pose as an expert and yet it seems you barely grasp the man's thought at all. Read what his thoughts were on slavery.

And we have to be tame. Its called civilization. In solitude you can be free. Amongst people - not so much. If we lost "slave morality" the world would tear itself to shreds.

"Like who?"

Martin Luther King. Gandhi. Lao Tse. Buddha. Nelson Mandela. W.H Auden. Socrates. But I suppose such individuals are merely enervated, subdued specimens in your eyes. Weak. Hahaha. I love that.


"Apparently not clear enough."



"You realise that Achilles was a mythological character right?"

Yes I do. Do you deny the relevance and profundity, do you deny the very TRUTH, of literature? Nietzsche learned a lot from books.

"Well, if I meet any Achaian mythological characters descended from a union between a nymph & royalty, you'll be the first to know."

You just lost the right to ever use the adjective "faustian."

"No, you have a species that has potential. This idea that Nietzsche was proposing a form of humanity that had no empathy or wished to develop a race of 'masters' to rule as overlords is Nazi ideology, not Nietzsche. He wasn't even anti-Semitic or nationalistic."

The species as a whole does not have potential, according to Nietzsche. Only a few superior individuals do.



"Another character from literature. Raskolnikov is a character in a Dostoyevsky novel, no more real than mythological Greeks. Plus, Dostoyevsky deliberately used the character of Raskolnikov in 'Crime & Punishment' as an example of misunderstood (particularly by the Russian zapadnik westernisers) western nihilism. Nietzsche was a real person. You can distinguish between reality & fantasy can't you? One of the definitions of schizophrenia is not being able to distinguish between the real & the imaginary. Nietzsche seemed to believe that was a problem that humanity as a whole was suffering from."

Again. You are on a literature forum. You deny that literary characters are real? They are not real in the flesh and blood, occupying physical space, sense of real. But they are real. Indeed, it could be argued that such characters are more real. Art is not real?! Art is the realest of the real.

"Yes, we can be better than god. Because we can rise above the duality god imposed on us as a species."

"Better than God." All right. Good luck with that.

Are you on drugs?

[Darcy88]

[QUOTE=Darcy88;1061786]

Are you on drugs?

If that's not an admission of capitulation I don't know what is. Congratulations. You've assured me of what I suspected when I read your first response - I was wasting my time.

You think I'm high or insane because I allude to fictional characters in order to prove a point on a literature forum.

Do you have any idea how immersed Nietzsche was in the world of myth, the world of imagination? Clearly not. I wonder how much Nietzsche you've actually read.

How about actually tackling any one of my several assertions? You won't. You evade. I bring up slave morality and you question the existence of Jesus - beside the point. Same with your criticism of my use of the word homeric - beside the point. Evasion is hardly in the spirit of Nietzsche.


I thought that Nietzsche believed that we were all potentially the Übermensch, unfortunately, he forgot to tell us how to achieve it.

We are all potentially the ubermensch? We can all be equally super?

Read your Nietzsche. Read him the way he deserves to be read - honestly.


To be humane is essential, nothing else.

I would agree. I doubt Nietzsche would though. Caesar was his "most beautiful type." Caesar, one of the least humane individuals ever spawned.

[Red-Headed]

[QUOTE=Red-Headed;1061861]

If that's not an admission of capitulation I don't know what is. Congratulations. You've assured me of what I suspected when I read your first response - I was wasting my time.

Capitulation? You are just repeating yourself.


You think I'm high or insane because I allude to fictional characters in order to prove a point on a literature forum.

Jesus Christ is a fictional character. Prove it otherwise.


Do you have any idea how immersed Nietzsche was in the world of myth, the world of imagination? Clearly not. I wonder how much Nietzsche you've actually read.

He may have often utilised the language of myth but this is irrelevant to his concept of the superman. You are the one who has misunderstood it. You are letting your own belief system dictate your understanding or interpretation of Nietzsche.


How about actually tackling any one of my several assertions? You won't. You evade.

Hardly. You are the one who is re-interpreting Nietzsche because of your own belief agenda.


I bring up slave morality and you question the existence of Jesus - beside the point.

You have either misunderstood what Nietzsche believed the slave morality actually was or are re-interpreting it because of your own religious belief system.

You cannot deny that you are hermeneutically interpreting Nietzsche from a Christian veiwpoint. Jesus Christ is just as mythological as any of the mythology you have quoted earlier.

Your 'interpretation' & mine are going to differ. Why bother beleaguering the point?


Same with your criticism of my use of the word homeric - beside the point. Evasion is hardly in the spirit of Nietzsche.

Again, Jesus is just as much a myth as the Homeric, you are the one evading the point. I just don't believe that humanity needs the meekness & humility of the slave morality.

Freedom from organised religion is the only hope for humanity. The superman does not have to be an abomination, that is the argument of the priest caste, & as Nietzsche pointed out, the priest caste is the most useless in society. They have no other skill, they are not warriors, artisans or even a labouring class.

The slave morality is their invention. Remove them & you remove it.


We are all potentially the ubermensch? We can all be equally super?

Read your Nietzsche. Read him the way he deserves to be read - honestly.

The superman is a state of mind. I have read Nietzsche, you are deliberately interpreting Nietzsche in a way that justifies your own religious beliefs.

You are still confusing Nietzsche with the Nazi interpretation of the Third Reich.

[G L Wilson]

I would agree. I doubt Nietzsche would though. Caesar was his "most beautiful type." Caesar, one of the least humane individuals ever spawned.

Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.

[Darcy88]

The superman is a state of mind. I have read Nietzsche, you are deliberately interpreting Nietzsche in a way that justifies your own religious beliefs.

You are still confusing Nietzsche with the Nazi interpretation of the Third Reich.

You think Nietzsche was egalitarian. Ludicrous. You think he was concerned about the welfare of the herd. Ludicrous again. You keep bringing up Jesus for some reason. Irrelevant.

And now the superman is a state of mind. Before it was a physiological and psychological development, a further evolutionary enhancement.

Jesus represents an actual historical type of man. The ascetic, prophet, holy man. Homer's heroes represent an actual historical culture. But again, this is totally beside the point. You won't argue about Nietzsche because you don't really know much Nietzsche.

"Freedom from organized religion is the only hope for humanity?" Wow, that's a beaut. You gotta explain that one to me. Organized religion is behind humanity's ills? Some of them perhaps. At a time when the churches have been devastated, when godlessness has gone mainstream, you lament our culture's degree of religiosity? But again, this is beside the point.

And Nietzsche was in favour of humility too. Among the small. He called it the pathos of distance. Google it.

Without slave morality you still have slaves. Slaves without dignity. I have to say it again - read your Nietzsche.

And I have no religious beliefs. Maybe I have some quasi-religious convictions, but I'd say that's better than your blind groping after the ideal set by some misanthropic elitist hermit who read the Iliad too many times.


Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.

Yes, cutting off the arms of thousands of prisoners of war was done in order to further some humane end down the road. Killing perhaps millions, your own countrymen included, in the name of personal glory and enrichment. Humane indeed.

[Red-Headed]

You think Nietzsche was egalitarian. Ludicrous. You think he was concerned about the welfare of the herd. Ludicrous again. You keep bringing up Jesus for some reason. Irrelevant.

Nietzsche was a product of his time. You have to read Nietzsche taking that into account. I never stated or believed that Nietzsche himself was an egalitarian. You were the one who brought up Jesus. I think that you need to drink less coffee. Try decaff.


And now the superman is a state of mind. Before it was a physiological and psychological development, a further evolutionary enhancement.

I never believed or stated it to be physiological, neither did Nietzsche. It could very well be evolutionary though. You are the one obsessed with the physiological.


Jesus represents an actual historical type of man. The ascetic, prophet, holy man. Homer's heroes represent an actual historical culture. But again, this is totally beside the point. You won't argue about Nietzsche because you don't really know much Nietzsche.

I am not sure you are actually arguing about Nietzsche anyway. You seem to have your own viewpoint & are consistently stating it.


"Freedom from organized religion is the only hope for humanity?" Wow, that's a beaut. You gotta explain that one to me. Organized religion is behind humanity's ills? Some of them perhaps. At a time when the churches have been devastated, when godlessness has gone mainstream, you lament our culture's degree of religiosity? But again, this is beside the point.

Oh, I'm sorry, I have a different belief to you. What a shame. It's interesting that you assume we come from the same culture. You assume & presume quite a lot.


And Nietzsche was in favour of humility too. Among the small. He called it the pathos of distance. Google it.

The phrase was not invented by Nietzsche anyway.


Without slave morality you still have slaves. Slaves without dignity. I have to say it again - read your Nietzsche.

I think that you are misinterpreting a lot of Nietzsche & taking much of what he wrote too literally. You aren't the first to do this.


And I have no religious beliefs. Maybe I have some quasi-religious convictions, but I'd say that's better than your blind groping after the ideal set by some misanthropic elitist hermit who read the Iliad too many times.

Again, you are the one who kept bringing up religion & mythology. Odd for someone with no real religious beliefs.

I am not even that much of a fan of Nietzsche, again, you do seem to project a lot of your own presumptions on to others. Something I think you have done with Nietzsche.

[Darcy88]

Again, Jesus is just as much a myth as the Homeric, you are the one evading the point. I just don't believe that humanity needs the meekness & humility of the slave morality.

Freedom from organised religion is the only hope for humanity. The superman does not have to be an abomination, that is the argument of the priest caste, & as Nietzsche pointed out, the priest caste is the most useless in society. They have no other skill, they are not warriors, artisans or even a labouring class.

The slave morality is their invention. Remove them & you remove it.[/QUOTE]

You talk in terms of "hope for humanity." The word "humanity" is one you use often. Nietzsche was not concerned with humanity. He was concerned with the elite exceptional few. This fact cannot be ignored. Humanity was a means towards achieving the end of a few lucky hits, a few "bulls-eyes."

The acceptance of injustice and inequality, social as well as spiritual/intellectual, is required if one is to accept Nietzsche. There is no world of supermen. There are some superman and a lot, a whole lot of inferior-types, de facto slaves.

Edit*

I just read your last response. Getting tired of me by now lol. I don't blame you.

You did present an egalitarian interpretation of Nietzsche. You said that according to him we could all potentially be superman.

The Nazis distorted Nietzsche in a grotesque, tragic way. Nietzsche and Hitler were antithetical in so many ways. Nietzsche would have despised him to no end. But a philosophy which attacks pity and apotheosizes power - its not hard to see how such views could easily be distorted.

Nietzsche praised Napoleon and Caesar. In certain moods I understand where he's coming from. I'm growing weary of explaining myself. In the end for me it comes down to love > power. Nietzsche would criticize my kind of love. Yes I love the weak, the lowly, the dispossessed - the herd as he called it. I'm on the side of the lambs, he was on the side of the wolves. Call me high or crazy or buzzed or whatever you want, the texts support my interpretation.

[Red-Headed]

You talk in terms of "hope for humanity." The word "humanity" is one you use often. Nietzsche was not concerned with humanity. He was concerned with the elite exceptional few. This fact cannot be ignored. Humanity was a means towards achieving the end of a few lucky hits, a few "bulls-eyes."

A/ You really need to learn to use the quote function properly, or try to use some basic HTML.

B/ I think that this interpretation of Nietzsche was very fashionable once. However, it is not the only one & as he contradicted himself much it is open to others.

C/ I also use the term dingo's kidneys a lot. Is that relevant too?


The acceptance of injustice and inequality, social as well as spiritual/intellectual, is required if one is to accept Nietzsche.

So you keep stating. Maybe you are reading too much literalness into it.


There is no world of supermen. There are some superman and a lot, a whole lot of inferior-types, de facto slaves.

Again, I think that this is a popular interpretation of Nietzsche. It has served many people & justified their own agendas.

Believe what you will, you have not convinced me to re-interpret what I have read of Nietzsche.

It doesn't matter how much you repeat it.


Again, Jesus is just as much a myth as the Homeric, you are the one evading the point. I just don't believe that humanity needs the meekness & humility of the slave morality.

Freedom from organised religion is the only hope for humanity. The superman does not have to be an abomination, that is the argument of the priest caste, & as Nietzsche pointed out, the priest caste is the most useless in society. They have no other skill, they are not warriors, artisans or even a labouring class.

The slave morality is their invention. Remove them & you remove it.

You talk in terms of "hope for humanity." The word "humanity" is one you use often. Nietzsche was not concerned with humanity. He was concerned with the elite exceptional few. This fact cannot be ignored. Humanity was a means towards achieving the end of a few lucky hits, a few "bulls-eyes."

The acceptance of injustice and inequality, social as well as spiritual/intellectual, is required if one is to accept Nietzsche. There is no world of supermen. There are some superman and a lot, a whole lot of inferior-types, de facto slaves.

Edit*

I just read your last response. Getting tired of me by now lol. I don't blame you.

You did present an egalitarian interpretation of Nietzsche. You said that according to him we could all potentially be superman.

The Nazis distorted Nietzsche in a grotesque, tragic way. Nietzsche and Hitler were antithetical in so many ways. Nietzsche would have despised him to no end. But a philosophy which attacks pity and apotheosizes power - its not hard to see how such views could easily be distorted.

Nietzsche praised Napoleon and Caesar. In certain moods I understand where he's coming from. I'm growing weary of explaining myself. In the end for me it comes down to love > power. Nietzsche would criticize my kind of love. Yes I love the weak, the lowly, the dispossessed - the herd as he called it. I'm on the side of the lambs, he was on the side of the wolves. Call me high or crazy or buzzed or whatever you want, the texts support my interpretation.


"Getting tired of me by now lol. I don't blame you."

This is an understatement.


You did present an egalitarian interpretation of Nietzsche. You said that according to him we could all potentially be superman.

No, you believe that I presented an 'egalitarian' interpretation of Nietzsche. Your interpretation of Nietzsche is not new, I have heard it before. I think that Nietzsche thought that it wasn't beyond humanity to reach the superman. I also believe he didn't really know what he actually meant by the superman. Unlike you of course. You remind me of socialists who consistently refer to Nietzsche as a nihilist. Which is an oversimplification & pedantic.

Learn how to edit.

[Darcy88]

This is an understatement.



No, you believe that I presented an 'egalitarian' interpretation of Nietzsche. Your interpretation of Nietzsche is not new, I have heard it before. I think that Nietzsche thought that it wasn't beyond humanity to reach the superman. I also believe he didn't really know what he actually meant by the superman. Unlike you of course. You remind me of socialists who consistently refer to Nietzsche as a nihilist. Which is an oversimplification & pedantic.

Learn how to edit.

I'll learn how to edit when you learn how to think critically. Deal?

I am a socialist. Its what prevented me from fully accepting Nietzsche. He was anti-socialist, anti-egalitarian. This is not just another interpretation alongside many arguable ones. You read Nietzsche and you cannot dispute this fact.

He didn't know what he meant by the superman? And neither do you? Then why are we even talking about it?

I belief that your statement that "we can all potentially be superman" reflects a pretty egalitarian interpretation yes. If I'm wrong then show me how I'm wrong. Seems plain to me.

The fact that my interpretation is not new bears no weight on its veracity. Nietzsche was aristocratic, elitist. Injustice and inequality were brute facts of life to him. I am tired of repeating myself. Saying that Nietzsche is open to interpretation is a weak position to take. Yes, there are many interpretations. However, some are supported better than others by the actual texts.

You believe that Nietzsche believed that humanity as a whole could attain to the level of the superman? Is that what you're saying? I don't know what to say to that. Does not sound like Nietzsche. Not at all.

[G L Wilson]

I'll learn how to edit when you learn how to think critically. Deal?

I am a socialist. Its what prevented me from fully accepting Nietzsche. He was anti-socialist, anti-egalitarian. This is not just another interpretation alongside many arguable ones. You read Nietzsche and you cannot dispute this fact.

He didn't know what he meant by the superman? And neither do you? Then why are we even talking about it?

I belief that your statement that "we can all potentially be superman" reflects a pretty egalitarian interpretation yes. If I'm wrong then show me how I'm wrong. Seems plain to me.

The fact that my interpretation is not new bears no weight on its veracity. Nietzsche was aristocratic, elitist. Injustice and inequality were brute facts of life to him. I am tired of repeating myself. Saying that Nietzsche is open to interpretation is a weak position to take. Yes, there are many interpretations. However, some are supported better than others by the actual texts.

You believe that Nietzsche believed that humanity as a whole could attain to the level of the superman? Is that what you're saying? I don't know what to say to that. Does not sound like Nietzsche. Not at all.

Nietzsche was nothing more than a man. Nietzsche was too honest for fools. You are such a fool, a wrecked angel.

[Darcy88]

Nietzsche was nothing more than a man. Nietzsche was too honest for fools. You are such a fool, a wrecked angel.

Fair enough. "Wrecked angel" actually does sound like an apt description of myself. Fool too. But I think we're all fools.

[Red-Headed]

I'll learn how to edit when you learn how to think critically. Deal?

You mentioned 'Genealogy of Morals'. Thinking critically (Nietzsche himself discusses his interest in the origin of morality in its preface) the overall critical assessment is (according to Nietzsche) that human nature is essentially unknown to us. The origins of the concepts of good & evil are essentially suspect & may actually have no intrinsic value in themselves. The un-egoistic instincts (& similar terms which are often translated badly from the German as 'pity') may be a danger to mankind as they may produce nihilism. This, according to Nietzsche, is when certain forms, which can be labelled 'goodness' could actually be a halt to human potentiality. The question of whether moral goodness could be a danger to mankind is a constant theme in this work.

Critically, the work wonders whether we are unknown to ourselves, whether we have ever really searched for ourselves & whether we care to bring back more than a hive mentality to the hive itself.

Critically it also asks:

1/ What is the ultimate origin of good & evil?
2/ Questions the relevance of Kant's Categorical Imperative.
3/ Are the origins of evil supernatural, & if not, what is its origin?
4/ What conditions arose for mankind to create the notions of good & evil?
5/ What intrinsic value do good & evil (or the notions of) have in themselves?
6/ Have these notions hindered or advanced mankind?
7/ What is the ultimate value of morality?

Is that critical enough?


I am a socialist.

You need not explain any further. This is why you are paradigmatically locked into your materialistic view of reality. It's easy to reduce everything down to a Marxist dialectical materialist perspective. Any Tom, Dick or Harriet can do that.


He didn't know what he meant by the superman? And neither do you? Then why are we even talking about it?

Why not?


I belief that your statement that "we can all potentially be superman" reflects a pretty egalitarian interpretation yes. If I'm wrong then show me how I'm wrong. Seems plain to me.

Of course it does, you're a socialist. Socialism has failed humanity. You need someone to be a scapegoat. Nietzsche is the poster boy for socialist whipping boys.


Saying that Nietzsche is open to interpretation is a weak position to take. Yes, there are many interpretations.

Only weak if you are interpreting it in a one-dimensional materialist socialist way. Open your eyes.


You believe that Nietzsche believed that humanity as a whole could attain to the level of the superman? Is that what you're saying? I don't know what to say to that. Does not sound like Nietzsche. Not at all.

I honestly think he thought it could be possible. You have been prejudiced in your interpretation of Nietzsche by your own socialist bigotry. The great failing of socialist thought is its literalness. This can be observed in the writings of Marx, but to be honest, it is a mindset that is foremost in all socialist thought. You need to escape from the dualistic paradigm of Marxist dialectics.

[Darcy88]

My belief that Nietzsche did not think the superman attainable by society as a whole is not biased, not connected to any view-point of my own. Throughout all of his books a staunchly aristocratic, elitist sentiment is recurrently expressed. The fact that you seem determined on ignoring this makes me doubt your objectivity in the matter.

Socialism failed humanity? Socialism never got a chance. Capitalism knocked its block off, first round knock out. You're statements are ludicrous. Weak. Hilarious.

Nietzsche is not my scapegoat. Little of what you say makes any sense. If I have a scapegoat its corporatism, capitalism, nay, even human nature, fate - not a mere thinker.

I barely feel behooved to even defend myself against you. The ludicrousness of your attacks undermines them already.

[Red-Headed]

My belief that Nietzsche did not think the superman attainable by society as a whole is not biased, not connected to any view-point of my own. Throughout all of his books a staunchly aristocratic, elitist sentiment is recurrently expressed. The fact that you seem determined on ignoring this makes me doubt your objectivity in the matter.

Well, that's your interpretation. It's not new. My objectivity is not the issue. There is far more to Nietzsche than this viewpoint. To ignore that complexity & focus on Nietzsche's 'elitism' is one-dimensional.


Socialism failed humanity? Socialism never got a chance. Capitalism knocked its block off, first round knock out. You're statements are ludicrous. Weak. Hilarious.

No, my statement is true. Socialism became corrupted as human nature is relatively predictable. Capitalism didn't destroy it, it destroyed itself.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

And you view Nietzsche as an elitist. There is more elitism in the words above (often falsely attributed to Marx) from Louis Blanc than in whole chapters of Nietzsche.


Nietzsche is not my scapegoat. Little of what you say makes any sense. If I have a scapegoat its corporatism, capitalism, nay, even human nature, fate - not a mere thinker.

I (very briefly) critically analysed Nietzsche's Zur Genealogie der Moral though didn't I? No mean feat for someone who doesn't know anything about Nietzsche.


I barely feel behooved to even defend myself against you. The ludicrousness of your attacks undermines them already.

Translation: It appears you have read a bit of Nietzsche after all, & understand many of his questions about the origins of the dualistic concept of human morality. I cannot debate with you about this as my knowledge of Nietzsche is one-dimensional & is perceived through the medium of social realism.

[Darcy88]

Well, that's your interpretation. It's not new. My objectivity is not the issue. There is far more to Nietzsche than this viewpoint. To ignore that complexity & focus on Nietzsche's 'elitism' is one-dimensional.



No, my statement is true. Socialism became corrupted as human nature is relatively predictable. Capitalism didn't destroy it, it destroyed itself.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

And you view Nietzsche as an elitist. There is more elitism in the words above (often falsely attributed to Marx) from Louis Blanc than in whole chapters of Nietzsche.



I (very briefly) critically analysed Nietzsche's Zur Genealogie der Moral though didn't I? No mean feat for someone who doesn't know anything about Nietzsche.



Translation: It appears you have read a bit of Nietzsche after all, & understand many of his questions about the origins of the dualistic concept of human morality. I cannot debate with you about this as my knowledge of Nietzsche is one-dimensional & is perceived through the medium of social realism.


You won't debate me. You retreat into baseless attacks, calling me high, schizophrenic, Christian, Marxist. I offered you my understanding of Nietzsche's origin of slave morality and you did not even comment on it. All you said was "are you on drugs?"

I am not a Marxist.

I focused on his elitism in order to disprove your contention that according to him all of us have superhuman potential. Sorry for getting specific, I know that's not exactly your thing.

Of course there is more to Nietzsche than his elitism. But he is elitist and, therefore, your particular assertion was wrong.

I have not read some Nietzsche. I've read everything of his that's ever been translated into english, much of it multiple times. I still don't think that makes me an expert, but it certainly does give me some familiarity on which to base my conclusions.

What I want, what I've asked for repeatedly, is your or anyone else's conception of what the superman is. I want to know what you get when you denounce slave morality. That's what I want. I think you get Caesar and Napoleon-type characters, the kind Nietzsche admired.

I know how diverse and profound the man's writings are. I think he was an uber-genius perhaps without peer. But I hold on to slave morality. I am a slave moralist. And he was ok with injustice. At some point you have to quit marveling at the man's inimitably astute insight and ask the simple question - what do I make of all this?

I've tried to debate you. You said Nietzsche cared about the herd. You offered a pretty sanitized interpretation of Nietzsche. You said the herd was victimized by the slave moralists. Go back and read what I said about that.

Your view on the downfall of socialism is pretty typical. You need to go study the history of the worker's movements in America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. America had to go socialist, it didn't, due to the intense, hard-driven campaign waged against it. When America failed to go socialist, socialism itself was doomed.

[Red-Headed]

You won't debate me. You retreat into baseless attacks, calling me high, schizophrenic, Christian, Marxist. I offered you my understanding of Nietzsche's origin of slave morality and you did not even comment on it. All you said was "are you on drugs?"

There is no point in debating the slave morality with you. You have your opinion already formed.


I am not a Marxist.

Neither am I.


I focused on his elitism in order to disprove your contention that according to him all of us have superhuman potential. Sorry for getting specific, I know that's not exactly your thing.

I wasn't talking about superhuman potential, & neither was Nietzsche. The superman is above the duality of good & evil. I know what your interpretation of superseding moral dualism is as well, & I know what you will say.


Of course there is more to Nietzsche than his elitism. But he is elitist and, therefore, your particular assertion was wrong.

I think you are over-focused on his elitism.


I have not read some Nietzsche. I've read everything of his that's ever been translated into english, much of it multiple times. I still don't think that makes me an expert, but it certainly does give me some familiarity on which to base my conclusions.

Frankly, that surprises me. You seem to have a very narrow view of many of the concepts Nietzsche was obsessed with.


What I want, what I've asked for repeatedly, is your or anyone else's conception of what the superman is. I want to know what you get when you denounce slave morality. That's what I want. I think you get Caesar and Napoleon-type characters, the kind Nietzsche admired.

Whatever the superman is, it isn't an elitist jack-boot wearing master race that thinks that there is no morality & can therefore proceed to enslave the universe.


I know how diverse and profound the man's writings are. I think he was an uber-genius perhaps without peer. But I hold on to slave morality. I am a slave moralist. And he was ok with injustice. At some point you have to quit marveling at the man's inimitably astute insight and ask the simple question - what do I make of all this?

I think that this is a matter of interpretation.


I've tried to debate you. You said Nietzsche cared about the herd.

No, I said if he didn't care why did he write anything at all? He probably despised the herd, I do.


You offered a pretty sanitized interpretation of Nietzsche. You said the herd was victimized by the slave moralists. Go back and read what I said about that.

I think you have misunderstood what I actually said, or maybe I didn't make it clear. I'm ceasing to care.


Your view on the downfall of socialism is pretty typical. You need to go study the history of the worker's movements in America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. America had to go socialist, it didn't, due to the intense, hard-driven campaign waged against it. When America failed to go socialist, socialism itself was doomed.

Why? I'm not an American. I do like Arthur Miller's plays though.

[Darcy88]

You still offer nothing in the way of a refutation of my remarks.

I know you are not a Marxist. You assumed I was.

You don't even know what the superman is and yet you go on about it as though its the be all end all. I know the Nazis were not supermen, of course they weren't. But the superman does not share our moral sentiments, either. There is a darker, harder to accept side to Nietzsche's philosophy that few of his admirers dare to acknowledge. I'll say it a million freaking times - what does the absence of slave morality look like? You could say it looks like Ancient Greece, which is why I brought up Homer - not the product of my undiagnosed schizophrenia nor my drug use (I haven't even smoked a joint in 5 years).

You said something to the effect that the slave moralists made the herd meek and humble. That's laughable. Nietzsche did not believe that.

You also said something to the effect that liberation from slave morality is humanity's greatest hope. Something to that effect. Once again - laughable.

You think that Nietzsche being ok with injustice is a matter for interpretation? Nietzsche did not even believe in the modern sense of justice. He did not believe in a fundamental equality amongst men. He thought it was a fiction rooted in the soul superstition.

I'm actually interested in hearing your take on "super-ceding moral dualism." That is the superman. I want to hear about the superman.

You say you're ceasing to care. I don't think you ever did. You get kicks out of playing a pretentious expert. You took my original post, carved it up and splattered it with facetious wannabe-witty remarks. Forget substance - let's nitpick. Jesus wasn't real so my opinion on Nietzsche must be wrong. Same with Achilles. Can't use the word Achilles-like, oh no.

Discussing a particular part of a philosophy does not amount to limiting that philosophy to that particular part.

There's no point in debating the slave morality with me because my opinion is already formed? This is what you say? Then why debate anything with anyone who has an opinion pertaining to the topic that's up for debate?

[Red-Headed]

There's no point in debating the slave morality with me because my opinion is already formed? This is what you say? Then why debate anything with anyone who has an opinion pertaining to the topic that's up for debate?

Good question, although I thought the OT was entitled 'Future Superman'? I know what your views on the superman are, you have told me. I just don't believe that it necessarily has to do with the abandoning of all morality. I think it could be something above the duality of morality. What that is exactly, is probably the $64, 000 question.


You still offer nothing in the way of a refutation of my remarks.

I know you are not a Marxist. You assumed I was.

You don't even know what the superman is and yet you go on about it as though its the be all end all. I know the Nazis were not supermen, of course they weren't. But the superman does not share our moral sentiments, either. There is a darker, harder to accept side to Nietzsche's philosophy that few of his admirers dare to acknowledge. I'll say it a million freaking times - what does the absence of slave morality look like? You could say it looks like Ancient Greece, which is why I brought up Homer - not the product of my undiagnosed schizophrenia nor my drug use (I haven't even smoked a joint in 5 years).

You said something to the effect that the slave moralists made the herd meek and humble. That's laughable. Nietzsche did not believe that.

You also said something to the effect that liberation from slave morality is humanity's greatest hope. Something to that effect. Once again - laughable.

You think that Nietzsche being ok with injustice is a matter for interpretation? Nietzsche did not even believe in the modern sense of justice. He did not believe in a fundamental equality amongst men. He thought it was a fiction rooted in the soul superstition.

I'm actually interested in hearing your take on "super-ceding moral dualism." That is the superman. I want to hear about the superman.

You say you're ceasing to care. I don't think you ever did. You get kicks out of playing a pretentious expert. You took my original post, carved it up and splattered it with facetious wannabe-witty remarks. Forget substance - let's nitpick. Jesus wasn't real so my opinion on Nietzsche must be wrong. Same with Achilles. Can't use the word Achilles-like, oh no.

Discussing a particular part of a philosophy does not amount to limiting that philosophy to that particular part.

The real question is that if you think that I am so stupid, why answer my posts at all? You win, you are better than me, I'm just a pretentious git.

[G L Wilson]

Nietzsche was not such an elitist that he couldn't be kind: judge him by his life and works, not just his works.

[Darcy88]

Good question, although I thought the OT was entitled 'Future Superman'? I know what your views on the superman are, you have told me. I just don't believe that it necessarily has to do with the abandoning of all morality. I think it could be something above the duality of morality. What that is exactly, is probably the $64, 000 question.

I think the superman is hinted at throughout all of Nietzsche's writings. Superman is just a word he used in Zarathustra. "Higher type" could be used also.

The superman is free of prejudice. He does not think as a Christian, a Marxist, a Buddhist, an Anarchist, ect. He thinks as an individual. In this way he is scientific. He's honest - no illusions, no escapes. He recognizes this life and this world for what it is and he affirms it. The Christian hates life and longs for the afterlife. The Communist/Socialist hates this world and strives to recreate it. The superman has no such hopes/illusions.

The superman is fearless. Being comfortable is not his thing. He has a warrior mentality, Spartan-like in a way. He is strong. Weakness is perhaps his greatest enemy.

He is probably an artist. Creativity was one of Nietzsche's primary values. Being free of prejudice he is also free to create. Wagner became a Christian and this compromised his artistic freedom. I believe this had a hand in shaping Nietzsche's philosophy.

The superman is self-absorbed the way most artistic and spiritual/philosophical types so often are. He is occupied in a rigorous process of self-development, getting ever stronger and wiser and more talented. He enjoys his solitude very much.

I think his main values are strength, honesty and creativity, somewhat correspondent to power, truth and beauty. Excellence replaces God.

He is not serious. He's child-like, full of joy, approaching life like its a kind of play.

He is a scientific artist who pushes the boundaries. Real artists and scientists accept. They don't judge. Their eyes are open and clear. No illusions, no walls.

As far as being non-dualistic... I think the superman still thinks in dualistic terms. He still recognizes badness - weakness, ugliness, pettiness, falseness, mediocrity, ect. His set of values is merely altered. But I think there may be more to it than this and I'll have to think about it more before I can adequately address it.

[Panglossian]

Interesting ding-dong (exchange of opinions).

I used to love Thus Spoke Zarathustra,. Read it countless times. Nowadays I see it as not much more than a poetic work of spiritual-philosophical hocus-pocus.

I'd be interested to learn which currently-alive person any of you think comes close to being an Ubermensch? ... ----(or is that a trivial question....)

[G L Wilson]

I'd be interested to learn which currently-alive person any of you think comes close to being an Ubermensch?

Me and that's basically it. I know of no others.

[Panglossian]

O delusion, my lion-heart!

[Des Essientes]

Interesting ding-dong (exchange of opinions).

I used to love Thus Spoke Zarathustra,. Read it countless times. Nowadays I see it as not much more than a poetic work of spiritual-philosophical hocus-pocus.

I'd be interested to learn which currently-alive person any of you think comes close to being an Ubermensch? ... ----(or is that a trivial question....)

I'd say Sheik Hassan Nasrallah who organized a small force of fighters that defeated the much better armed Zionists in a war in 2006 comes the closest to being a Nietzchean superman out of leaders in the world today. Read section 60 of the Antichrist.

[Panglossian]

I'd say Sheik Hassan Nasrallah who organized a small force of fighters that defeated the much better armed Zionists in a war in 2006 comes the closest to being a Nietzchean superman out of leaders in the world today. Read section 60 of the Antichrist.

Interesting choice. But would the Ubermensch be a leader of men? Would he be a man of war, a man of peace, a man of resistance? I'm not sure he would be. He'd be more occupied with his own psychological authority and the creation of his own "law tables". I doubt he would be concerned with nationalistic issues or leading followers. In other words I think he would be deeply anarchistic.

[Darcy88]

Interesting choice. But would the Ubermensch be a leader of men? Would he be a man of war, a man of peace, a man of resistance? I'm not sure he would be. He'd be more occupied with his own psychological authority and the creation of his own "law tables". I doubt he would be concerned with nationalistic issues or leading followers. In other words I think he would be deeply anarchistic.

I tend to agree though its hard to say for sure. I do however highly doubt that a devout muslim would qualify as a superman. And that would go for an adherent of any religion - Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, ect.

Having just re-read the last bit of Heart of Darkness, I was struck by how superman-like the character of Kurtz was. He'd gone beyond conventional morality; he was strong, able, exceptional; he was an artist, a poet and a painter and a musician; he was his own law.

Now I doubt Nietzsche would have imagined his supermen out in the jungle amassing ivory and putting heads on spikes... but the comparison is undeniably fitting in many ways.

Edit*

I've thought more about this... I don't think Kurtz would qualify as a bonafide superman... but I can't say exactly why! When you abandon conventional morality I do not see how you do not then inevitably slip into a place where anything goes. I don't see how people do not become mere means, and considering Nietzsche's attack on Kant's categorical imperative, in addition to other remarks he made, I think this interpretation of mine has some basis. Perhaps if the superman restricts his sphere of activity to art and science and philosophy, maybe then he can manage to be supra-moral without thereby becoming dangerous.

And I don't think Nietzsche was writing for men of action, for men in business or politics. Industrialism, nationalism - such things would repel a superman I'd expect, make him turn inward, towards art, science, philosophy - towards creativity.

If I'm right now then I was wrong before. The superman likely abstains from commerce and politics and so its unlikely that he would be the monster I accused him of being before.

I still have a lot of thinking to do on this subject though.

[Panglossian]

I still have a lot of thinking to do on this subject though.

It goes to the heart of religion and philosophy: What is the most correct way for "I" to think? What is the most correct way for "I" to be? How would the most perfect human being think? How would the most perfect human being live and be? ...

[G L Wilson]

It goes to the heart of religion and philosophy: What is the most correct way for "I" to think? What is the most correct way for "I" to be? How would the most perfect human being think? How would the most perfect human being live and be? ...

The Superman would never strive for perfection, he is not a saint and has no wish to be.

[Panglossian]

The Superman would never strive for perfection, he is not a saint and has no wish to be.

"The Superman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the Superman shall be the meaning of the earth." (Thus Spoke Zarathustra) -- Sounds like a striving after some sort of perfectionism, otherwise why write it, why bother, why care. Of course, we all know perfection is impossible, but that doesn't stop us attempting to conceptualize the "most perfect" human type.

[G L Wilson]

"The Superman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the Superman shall be the meaning of the earth." (Thus Spoke Zarathustra) -- Sounds like a striving after some sort of perfectionism, otherwise why write it, why bother, why care. Of course, we all know perfection is impossible, but that doesn't stop us attempting to conceptualize the "most perfect" human type.

I can will to do nothing.

[Panglossian]

I can will to do nothing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HseDwc9vgg&feature=related

[G L Wilson]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HseDwc9vgg&feature=related

I am whatever I will.

[Panglossian]

I am whatever I will.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjj9-q4nFVY&feature=related

[G L Wilson]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjj9-q4nFVY&feature=related

The world has many meanings, none which matter.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The world has many meanings, none which matter.
What's that supposed to mean?

[G L Wilson]

What's that supposed to mean?

It doesn't matter.

[Panglossian]

It doesn't matter.

Music matters. Literature reveals all the peculiarities of the human spirit but music goes right to the core like nothing else. Nietzsche wrote: “Without music, life would be a mistake.” He even thought that music could replace religion/mysticism as the sole focus of the "soul".

Two epics at different ends of the spectrum:
Vaughan-Williams: Fantasia on a Theme of Thomas Tallis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxdOYgTXtH8
Rainbow: Stargazer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6W7jMURpGU&feature=related

I'll stop now.

[Theunderground]

Panglos,i think your description of Nietzsche as a quasi religious philosopher and his eventual descent into his 'messianic' quality and his own 'idealism' is spot on. At last somebody 'gets' what Nietzsche was about and how he failed to break from the romantic idealism and religiousity he so vehemently rejects in others. Some Great insights he unearthed about human morality though.

[Panglossian]

Panglos,i think your description of Nietzsche as a quasi religious philosopher and his eventual descent into his 'messianic' quality and his own 'idealism' is spot on. At last somebody 'gets' what Nietzsche was about and how he failed to break from the romantic idealism and religiousity he so vehemently rejects in others. Some Great insights he unearthed about human morality though.

Yeah, thanks, :iagree: Nietzsche's genius and foibles are fascinating from a psychological point of view: I think a lot can be learned by just following and thinking about the intense processes of his philosophical evolution. I often wonder where his thinking would have gone if he'd lived healthily into his 60s, 70s, 80s.

[Theunderground]

Yeah,i sometimes think if he had remained healthy he would have possibly got married and completed his philosophy by becoming 'human all too human'. Something like intellectual republican Machiavellianism,or just ridden off into the sunset to have 'his children'. .