Future Superman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G L Wilson

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

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

---

Why not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red-Headed

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

I am not a Marxist.

---

Neither am I.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red-Headed

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.

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....)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Panglossian

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.

O delusion, my lion-heart!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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....)

---

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.