Future Superman

[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]

[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.

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=Darcy88;1061786]

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=Red-Headed;1061861]

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=Darcy88;1061868]

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.