• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Ubermensch in Real Life

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
^okay fine my statement is not necessarily true. you win the logic war.

seriously. you do.

I just didn't want to have the logic war. I wanted to get a point across that was pretty damn simple. If you didn't focus on the fact that it isn't necessarily true in every single case, you would have understood what I meant fine.

I guess I got all pissed off because it seemed like you were sitting there refreshing until you could find a post with some wording you can find a logical flaw with. Well, that's great, and I'm sure you can prove your points that way...but you miss the substance of other people's opinions and ideas by throwing out 95% of what they mean.

You don't seem like a stupid guy, and I guess it just seemed childish to me that you chose not to spend a bit of mental energy intuiting the meaning I was trying to convey.

The issue was not that I didn't understand what you were trying to say, it was that I found tons of problems (or possibly just one major problem) with your construction.

I wasn't just nitpicking.

I genuinely don't think it's fair to say that our morals are completely defined by external factors, nor, to a lesser degree of acuteness, that our morals are so determined by external factors that we should deem "independent morality" a contradiction in terms.

That's all... and I don't think it's at all an unfair point to make...

I think any truly intelligent person would want to be wary of closing their mind regarding that assumption.

You seem like an intelligent guy to me, and, as such, I genuinely believed you were walking down a path that you ought to reconsider.

My original point before getting sidetracked was that I found it odd that people were acting as if whether or not a person is an ubermensch was so completely binary. Nothing in anyone's explanation gave me any reason to believe it wouldn't just be a spectrum. So, can't this thread just be boiled down to "people that are beyond some arbitrary threshold in the multidimensional space of ubermenschness"?

In my opinion, that spectrum would be something like Heidegger's idea of authenticity: with inauthentic on one side, and authentic on the other.

Also, in my opinion, I believe they were both really just expressing the self-importance of their own Fi values.

It would basically, translated into typological terminology, be like saying:

Authenticity : Inauthenticity
Fi : Fe

or

Fi = Authenticity
Fe = Inauthenticity

There is a potential deeper contradiction in there as well (it's actually essentially the same one I pointed to earlier about MLK), but that's life, ain't it?

Dissoi Logoi...
 

Wonkavision

Retired Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
1,154
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w8
I don't think Martin Luther King fits the concept of Ubermensch, as described by Nietzsche.

According to Wikipedia ( Ãœbermensch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ):
Nietzsche introduces the concept of the Ãœbermensch in contrast to the other-worldliness of Christianity: Zarathustra proclaims the Ãœbermensch to be the meaning of the earth and admonishes his audience to ignore those who promise other-worldly hopes in order to draw them away from the earth. The turn away from the earth is prompted, he says, by a dissatisfaction with life, a dissatisfaction that causes one to create another world in which those who made one unhappy in this life are tormented. The Ãœbermensch is not driven into other worlds away from this one.

It's well known that MLK was a devout Christian, and though I don't know exactly what brand of theology he subscribed to, I think it's safe to assume he believed in some kind of afterlife or other-worldly hope--effectively disqualifying him from being considered a Nietzschean Ubermensch.

Does anybody actually dispute that?




I think it's worth noting that, according to Wikipedia:
There is no overall consensus regarding the precise meaning of the Ãœbermensch

So the concept of Ubermensch is basically open to interpretation. I'm only giving MY interpretation here, and it is in no way intended to be definitive or dogmatic.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
The issue was not that I didn't understand what you were trying to say, it was that I found tons of problems (or possibly just one major problem) with your construction.

I wasn't just nitpicking.

I genuinely don't think it's fair to say that our morals are completely defined by external factors, nor, to a lesser degree of acuteness, that our morals are so determined by external factors that we should deem "independent morality" a contradiction in terms.

That's all... and I don't think it's at all an unfair point to make...

I think any truly intelligent person would want to be wary of closing their mind regarding that assumption.

You seem like an intelligent guy to me, and, as such, I genuinely believed you were walking down a path that you ought to reconsider.

Wait, so are you saying the one major problem you saw was that you thought I was saying our morals are completely defined by external factors? And now you know I don't think that's true?

If so, good.

Because it's not the only factor.

But actually, now that I think about it, I can argue that it is (I'm really beginning to think I'm ENTP now)--
-Our morals are a function of external and internal factors (I hope you don't disagree with that assumption).
-But even the internal factors are a function of the gene pool/meiosis/mutation, which are external factors too.
-So internal factors are really external factors.

What would it really mean to have independent morals anyway? I just want to know the way people are using that term because now I'm just confused.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
I don't think Martin Luther King fits the concept of Ubermensch, as described by Nietzsche.

According to Wikipedia ( Ãœbermensch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ):

It's well known that MLK was a devout Christian, and though I don't know exactly what brand of theology he subscribed to, I think it's safe to assume he believed in some kind of afterlife or other-worldly hope--effectively disqualifying him from being considered a Nietzschean Ubermensch.

Does anybody actually dispute that?

I don't think believing in an afterlife would disqualify one from being an ubermensch.

Now, to believe in an afterlife, in order to draw oneself away from this world, due to the fact that you are dissatisfied with this life, well, yes, that would disqualify you from ubermenschitude.

As such, it's still debatable whether MLK really achieved such a state.
 

Wonkavision

Retired Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
1,154
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w8
I don't think believing in an afterlife would disqualify one from being an ubermensch.

Now, to believe in an after life, in order to draw oneself away from this world, due to the fact that you are dissatisfied with this life, well, yes, that would disqualify you from ubermenschitude.

As such, it's still debatable whether MLK really achieved such a state.

Yeah.

And, interestingly enough, I can't find a single quote from MLK to confirm that he even believed in an afterlife (or salvation through the substitutionary atonement of Christ, or a personal God, or anything else that would tie him to Christian mysticism!)

I think there are a lot of other things that disqualify MLK from being considered an Ubermensch---namely his altruism and his belief in "Good and Evil"---but demonstrating that would require more effort than I'm willing to put in at the moment. :shrug::D
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
And, interestingly enough, I can't find a single quote from MLK to confirm that he even believed in an afterlife (or salvation through the substitutionary atonement of Christ, or a personal God, or anything else that would tie him to Christian mysticism!)

To be quite honest: this doesn't surprise me one bit.

I think there are a lot of other things that disqualify MLK from being considered an Ubermensch---namely his altruism and his belief in "Good and Evil"---but demonstrating that would require more effort than I'm willing to put in at the moment. :shrug::D

One could respectably argue that Nietzsche thought Jesus was a superman.

I definitely think that altruism need not disqualify one from ubermenschitude, and there are entire chapters from Nietzsche's work that essentially say as much.

As for belief in "Good and Evil", why couldn't one Zarathustrify Nietzsche's Zarathustrification of Zarathustra?

Who's to say Nietzsche even gets to have the last word on what the ubermensch really is? What if Nietzsche's thought was just one step on the road to the true ubermensch?
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Wait, so are you saying the one major problem you saw was that you thought I was saying our morals are completely defined by external factors? And now you know I don't think that's true?

If so, good.

Because it's not the only factor.

I would also add my "nor, to a lesser degree of acuteness, that our morals are so determined by external factors that we should deem 'independent morality' a contradiction in terms."

But actually, now that I think about it, I can argue that it is (I'm really beginning to think I'm ENTP now)--
-Our morals are a function of external and internal factors (I hope you don't disagree with that assumption).
-But even the internal factors are a function of the gene pool/meiosis/mutation, which are external factors too.
-So internal factors are really external factors.

I won't take umbrage with axiom 1; but I will take umbrage with axiom 2.

The internal factors are not by any means necessarily and merely a "function of the gene pool/meiosis/mutation"...

What of something called "the will"? I believe it was rather important to Nietzsche's philosophy...

(And if you want to start down the road of saying that the will is simply a result of external factors, I'm just lettin you know now: I'm gunna call reductionism on you.)

What would it really mean to have independent morals anyway? I just want to know the way people are using that term because now I'm just confused.

It would mean that your morals and opinions come from yourself.
 

nozflubber

DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
2,078
MBTI Type
Hype
omg you two...

get a (debate) room!! that or some rockem sockem robots.
 

yenom

Alexander the Terrible
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
1,755
yea him

8-bill_gates_microsoft.jpg
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
Frodo's an Ãœbermensch or more like Ãœberhobbit ?
 

Valiant

Courage is immortality
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Messages
3,895
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Of course übermenschen exists.
Some people are just made out of a stronger fiber than others.
Competency, nerves, intelligence, will, endurance, valor.

I have never fallen for the illusion that all men are equal. That's bullshit.
However, it is the duty of the strong to protect the weak, the man with good eyesight to lead the blind.

What Hitler did was really freaking stupid and evil.
In my experience, jews as a culture tend to be, if anything, more competent, persistent and full of spirit than most other people.
 

yenom

Alexander the Terrible
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
1,755
Of course übermenschen exists.
Some people are just made out of a stronger fiber than others.
Competency, nerves, intelligence, will, endurance, valor.

I have never fallen for the illusion that all men are equal. That's bullshit.
However, it is the duty of the strong to protect the weak, the man with good eyesight to lead the blind.

What Hitler did was really freaking stupid and evil.
In my experience, jews as a culture tend to be, if anything, more competent, persistent and full of spirit than most other people.

Sorry, thats just a load of BS.

What you said the first two paragrapths contradict the last paragraph.
Your beliefs are exactly the same as Hitler's.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Sorry, thats just a load of BS.

What you said the first two paragrapths contradict the last paragraph.
Your beliefs are exactly the same as Hitler's.

Yeah, I dont see how you get that at all.

The points YLJ made in the first two sentences where pretty much congruent with your average US conservative or liberal or even a conservative democrat, you're either very ignorant about what Hitler's beliefs where or you're just being rude.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Of course übermenschen exists.
Some people are just made out of a stronger fiber than others.
Competency, nerves, intelligence, will, endurance, valor.

I have never fallen for the illusion that all men are equal. That's bullshit.
However, it is the duty of the strong to protect the weak, the man with good eyesight to lead the blind.

What Hitler did was really freaking stupid and evil.
In my experience, jews as a culture tend to be, if anything, more competent, persistent and full of spirit than most other people.

To be honest, in my familiarity with it, Nietzsche's version of the Ubermensch is premodern, something like the Pharoahs, so they'd not necessarily worried about the weak.

I'm very much in agreement with you that people are cut from different stuff, they do develop differently and how that's determined exactly is something which interests me a lot, I'm also very interested in the public discussion of how determinism operates because I think that could influence how it operates too. For the better.

However I'm not sure how that relates to the issue of equality, too often equality is mixed up with uniformity in peoples minds, if people say that two things are equal they mean they are the same. I dont consider equality that way really.
 

Ivy

Strongly Ambivalent
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
23,989
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6
I don't think Martin Luther King fits the concept of Ubermensch, as described by Nietzsche.

According to Wikipedia ( Ãœbermensch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ):


It's well known that MLK was a devout Christian, and though I don't know exactly what brand of theology he subscribed to, I think it's safe to assume he believed in some kind of afterlife or other-worldly hope--effectively disqualifying him from being considered a Nietzschean Ubermensch.

Does anybody actually dispute that?

There's a subset of Christianity, mostly the liberal sects like eastern Quakers and some Anglicans, that is focused on "social justice" as a (or maybe the only) manifestation of the Kingdom of God. They believe that it's not in some imaginary heaven- it's here on earth. I think that kind of Christian could be an ubermensch, and I think MLK Jr. was that kind of Christian.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
What you said the first two paragrapths contradict the last paragraph. Your beliefs are exactly the same as Hitler's.

Gratz everyone.
We made it until Post #52 before someone Godwin'ed up the works.
That was admirable for a thread like this one.
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
Look I found him:

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mh9lZ5-pqA"].[/YOUTUBE]
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I actually think this is a pretty good analysis.

Of course, one of the "subjective" things about the idea of an ubermensch is that one could be independently minded enough to say (regarding MLK), "I think Christian mysticism is great, and I could really give a fuck what anyone says about it", and thus still be an ubermensch. In other words, one could ubermensch the concept that an ubermensch couldn't appreciate and take seriously previously established values.

Its possible for a person to be an independently minded Christian mystic, however, its unclear if Martin Luther was one.

Sup buddy?

Anyway, with your view, it seems impossible for a person to truly be an ubermensch, as just existing in reality means your cognition is affected by external factors. Your morals are just a function of that, so in that sense, there's no such thing as independent morals..

Although its obvious that the morality of everyone is in some sense influenced by the external world, a person can critically evaluate what he observes in the world. An indepenent thinker does that and a person who lacks autonomy of thought does not, an Overman is an independent thinker. In this case, you'd need a certain degree of independent thought to be considered sufficiently independent to be an Overman, you don't need to be entirely independently minded.

Your criticism presupposes that an Overman by definition must be completely independently minded, however, Nietzsche made no such assertion. His view can therefore be salvaged by defining sufficient independence as partial rather than complete autonomy of thought.

I don't think Martin Luther King fits the concept of Ubermensch, as described by Nietzsche.

According to Wikipedia ( Ãœbermensch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ):


It's well known that MLK was a devout Christian, and though I don't know exactly what brand of theology he subscribed to, I think it's safe to assume he believed in some kind of afterlife or other-worldly hope--effectively disqualifying him from being considered a Nietzschean Ubermensch.

Does anybody actually dispute that?.

I'd have to say that the most conventional interpretation of Christianity is inconsistent with the kernel of Nietzsche's moral philosophy. However, Christianity is and has always been a multifarious theology. Its possible for a Christian to interpret the other-worldly writings in the scripture as merely figurative expressions that extol self-empowerment and the joys of this life. In that sense, it is possible for an Overman to be a Christian mystic.

Another thing to remember about Nietzsche is that although he was vehemently opposed to the idea of the after-life, he viewed the refutation of philosophies that promote the idea of the after-life as only means to an end rather than as an end in itself.

Nietzsche first and foremost taught that people should embrace life to the fullest, however, in order to do that, they typically need to renounce their ambitions for the after-life. If a person can fully embrace the present life without renouncing his ambitions for the after-life, there is no reason why he cannot be an Overman.

However, I don't believe that Martin Luther King fully embraced the joys of the present life and for that, among many other reasons, cannot be considered an Ubermensch.

There's a subset of Christianity, mostly the liberal sects like eastern Quakers and some Anglicans, that is focused on "social justice" as a (or maybe the only) manifestation of the Kingdom of God. They believe that it's not in some imaginary heaven- it's here on earth. I think that kind of Christian could be an ubermensch, and I think MLK Jr. was that kind of Christian.

Thank you, you've found a concrete example of the theoretical point I was trying to get across. I am no sure if Martin Luther King interpreted the Biblical writings about the after-life as figurative rather than literal, however.
 

Valiant

Courage is immortality
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Messages
3,895
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Sorry, thats just a load of BS.

What you said the first two paragrapths contradict the last paragraph.
Your beliefs are exactly the same as Hitler's.


Heh, you're a funny guy.
I think i'm going to throw you a nice parade, mein kamerad. :jew:

nazi.gif



Yeah, I dont see how you get that at all.

The points YLJ made in the first two sentences where pretty much congruent with your average US conservative or liberal or even a conservative democrat, you're either very ignorant about what Hitler's beliefs where or you're just being rude.

I am anarcho-liberal, I guess.
And yes, he's got some beef with me.
Don't know why he's not on my ignore list yet.

To be honest, in my familiarity with it, Nietzsche's version of the Ubermensch is premodern, something like the Pharoahs, so they'd not necessarily worried about the weak.

I'm very much in agreement with you that people are cut from different stuff, they do develop differently and how that's determined exactly is something which interests me a lot, I'm also very interested in the public discussion of how determinism operates because I think that could influence how it operates too. For the better.

However I'm not sure how that relates to the issue of equality, too often equality is mixed up with uniformity in peoples minds, if people say that two things are equal they mean they are the same. I dont consider equality that way really.


Well, those are Nietzsche's definitions.
I wonder how being an inbred son of a bitch who inherited a job that he can't get fired from makes a person an übermensch. :D
Not that it would be impossible, I seem to recall a couple of Ptolemaic dynasty Pharaohs being very well-read.


What is your idea on how it is determined?

Equality is just a twisted and unrealistic idea, if you ask me.
I'd like to think of it as people having certain basic rights, instead.
One shouldn't take away these rights or violate them unless provoked.
But... The whole thing is ridiculous. Some people are more, and some are less.

In my experience there are some you don't ever notice.
Others are forces of nature, and most fall in between those two.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Although its obvious that the morality of everyone is in some sense influenced by the external world, a person can critically evaluate what he observes in the world. An indepenent thinker does that and a person who lacks autonomy of thought does not, an Overman is an independent thinker. In this case, you'd need a certain degree of independent thought to be considered sufficiently independent to be an Overman, you don't need to be entirely independently minded.

Your criticism presupposes that an Overman by definition must be completely independently minded, however, Nietzsche made no such assertion. His view can therefore be salvaged by defining sufficient independence as partial rather than complete autonomy of thought.

Right. My point was that it's always going to be arbitrary where the threshold point is -- where to one side you're an overman and to the other side you aren't.

So that's the problem I see with this discussion. It's impossible that everyone would have the same threshold point in their personal view of the term.


I see no problem with terms that have arbitrary threshold points in some spectrum. But there's a problem when people don't keep that in mind and allow for a bit of discrepancy between two peoples' views on the subject.
 
Top