• 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

nolla

Senor Membrane
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
3,166
MBTI Type
INFP
Damn, I thought I'd be able to figure out what the hell ubermensch really means by reading those 19 posts.

I have trouble spelling ubermänch in my head while reading this. It is superman in english, goddammit! :steam:
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
What people like Theodore Roosevelt, Adolf Hitler, Ghandi, or Martin Luther King Jr.?

An Ubermetsch or Overmman thinks for himself, does not allow external systems of morality to control his views, remains mentally strong and lives his life in accordance to his independent ethical values.

Napoleon was not only a brute conqueror, he was also an intellectual with a great ambition to promote the culture of Enlightenment. The same cannot be said about Hitler. Hitler lacked the discipline of thought that Nietzsche's Overman greatly valued. Martin Luther King's independence of thought from Christian mysticism is questionable and Nietzsche would likely condemn him for succumbing to slave morality. Ghandi was a thorough-going altruist with ascetic tendencies, he denied himself sexual pleasures and engaged in fasting. Nietzsche regarded such practices as self-flagellation, in his view, to engage in self-denial means to say no to life. Roosevelt's independence from "slave morality" is questionable and its unclear if he pursued his objectives with true Nietzschean fervor.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
An Ubermetsch or Overmman thinks for himself, does not allow external systems of morality to control his views, remains mentally strong and lives his life in accordance to his independent ethical values.

Napoleon was not only a brute conqueror, he was also an intellectual with a great ambition to promote the culture of Enlightenment. The same cannot be said about Hitler. Hitler lacked the discipline of thought that Nietzsche's Overman greatly valued. Martin Luther King's independence of thought from Christian mysticism is questionable and Nietzsche would likely condemn him for succumbing to slave morality. Ghandi was a thorough-going altruist with ascetic tendencies, he denied himself sexual pleasures and engaged in fasting. Nietzsche regarded such practices as self-flagellation, in his view, to engage in self-denial means to say no to life. Roosevelt's independence from "slave morality" is questionable and its unclear if he pursued his objectives with true Nietzschean fervor.

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.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
An Ubermetsch or Overmman thinks for himself, does not allow external systems of morality to control his views, remains mentally strong and lives his life in accordance to his independent ethical values.

Napoleon was not only a brute conqueror, he was also an intellectual with a great ambition to promote the culture of Enlightenment. The same cannot be said about Hitler. Hitler lacked the discipline of thought that Nietzsche's Overman greatly valued. Martin Luther King's independence of thought from Christian mysticism is questionable and Nietzsche would likely condemn him for succumbing to slave morality. Ghandi was a thorough-going altruist with ascetic tendencies, he denied himself sexual pleasures and engaged in fasting. Nietzsche regarded such practices as self-flagellation, in his view, to engage in self-denial means to say no to life. Roosevelt's independence from "slave morality" is questionable and its unclear if he pursued his objectives with true Nietzschean fervor.

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.

I guess there's some threshold point or something? I dunno...I can't figure out why everyone is treating it like a clear yes or no thing.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
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.

That statement is so riddled with presuppositions I don't even want to start disentangling it all...
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
The bigger the lie the easier it is to believe.

Gandhi was a thorough-going altruist with ascetic tendencies, he denied himself sexual pleasures...

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi slept with naked virgins on either side of him. Today he would be arrested for child abuse.

His politics led to the violent partition of India and a state of perpetual warfare between nuclear Pakistan and nuclear India.

And yet we are constantly told Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was a non-violent ascetic.

The bigger the lie the easier it is to believe.
 

nozflubber

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


This is important to remember. We cannot logically infer that all Christians were of slave morality as Nietzsche described simply because many/most Christians are like that. Nietzsche wasn't against Christian mysticism or thought in general (or anything else for that matter because he would have been a naysayer himself and hence a hypocrite), he was against becoming a part of that for all the wrong reasons. If MLK had found his own, independent personal reasons outside of "be this way because we say so", then we cannot rule him out as UM.


Same thing with Gandhi - he could have been saying yes to abstinence for his own independent spiritual reasons, such as the pursuit of wisdom, rather than saying no to sexuality like a Naysayer would. It's about the inner motivations, which, again, we unfortunately don't really have access to. It's just "for fun" if anything, as I think one of you already stated.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Apparently you don't see all the assumptions made there...

Such as:

- the meaning of morals
- the meaning of "to be a function of"
- the meaning of "the socialization process"

And, if we use exactly what you said:

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.

- the meaning of cognition
- cognition's relation to morality
- the nature of the effect external factors have upon cognition, and how this relates to morality
- the meaning of "independent morals"
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Superman and the Will to Power

I have trouble spelling ubermänch in my head while reading this. It is superman in english, goddammit! :steam:

Ah, the voice of sanity from Finland, recently found by Newsweek to be the best country in the world.

And yes it is 'superman'.

Superman is not a liberal democrat. He is not democratic at all. Superman is the supreme expression of the triumph of the will.

And not only is superman the complete expression of the triumph of the will, but he is the expression of adolescent fantasy.

For liberal democracy limits power while superman maximisers power.

Superman not only maximisers power but he had no sense of humour.

There is nothing funny about superman, nor is he disabled, jewish, catholic or gay.

Superman is not an artist, a scientist, a musician, a philosopher or even a husband and father.

Superman is straight out of Nietzsche's book, "The Will to Power", and "Mein Kampf".

And superman is sold to adolescents all over the world by the world's hegemon.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Apparently you don't see all the assumptions made there...

Such as:

- the meaning of morals
- the meaning of "to be a function of"
- the meaning of "the socialization process"

And, if we use exactly what you said:



- the meaning of cognition
- cognition's relation to morality
- the nature of the effect external factors have upon cognition, and how this relates to morality
- the meaning of "independent morals"

Apparently you don't realize that a person literally cannot make a valid point without having assumptions. Yes, that includes you!

Assumptions are not bad. Being anti-assumption is being anti-thought.

What a silly point to make.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Apparently you don't realize that a person cannot make a sound point unless their assumptions are true.

And you have not demonstrated how the assumptions underlying your statement are true.

Once again, your statement:

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.

Riddled with questionable assumptions.

Far too many to simply utter that statement as if it were true.

To simply accept assumptions that one does not know to be true is the true anti-thought.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Okay, well let's sit here and point out all of your assumptions. For example, you're assuming you know the definition of every word you use (there go a few hundred assumptions). And you assume you know the definition of every word I use, and that I mean them the same way.

Silly.

If you are curious about what I mean, try to understand. If you can't understand, why nitpick about something so worthless?
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
We are born without control of even our sphincter. But over the next 22 years we slowly gain control of ourselves.

This is our first life task. And after such an effort we valorize it. Finally after 22 years of effort, we are superman and our parents are proud of us.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Apparently you don't realize that a person cannot make a sound point unless their assumptions are true.

By the way, this logic applies more than you think.

You can't make a sound point unless your assumptions are true. And how do you figure out if those assumptions are true? By assuming more. Rinse and repeat.

You always assume SOMETHING. Striving for "TRUTH" is stupid, because you can't verify anything without assuming something. Striving for mutual understanding or personal truth are the only goals worth pursuing.

But, go ahead, bang your head against the wall for the rest of your life.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Okay, well let's sit here and point out all of your assumptions. For example, you're assuming you know the definition of every word you use (there go a few hundred assumptions). And you assume you know the definition of every word I use, and that I mean them the same way.

Silly.

If you are curious about what I mean, try to understand. If you can't understand, why nitpick about something so worthless?

Actually, I never said that I knew the definition of every word that you used (at least not in the way you use them).

And regarding my definitions for words, I can state them if you ask.

No, I was really curious about very specific assumptions you were making.

Like, the one that stated that there's no such thing as independent morals.

And how somehow this is proven by three underlying assumptions:

1) that we exist in reality
2) that doing so means that our cognition is affected by external factors
3) and what it means for our morals to be "just a function of this"
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
By the way, this logic applies more than you think.

You can't make a sound point unless your assumptions are true. And how do you figure out if those assumptions are true? By assuming more. Rinse and repeat.

You always assume SOMETHING. Striving for "TRUTH" is stupid, because you can't verify anything without assuming something. Striving for mutual understanding or personal truth are the only goals worth pursuing.

Well, you can assume that some of your assumptions are true.

Or, at least true enough to accept.

Or accept that they might not be true, but that you'll listen to your intuition, regardless of whether it's true or not.

But that does not change whether your assumptions were true in that statement that you made.

Those are the only assumptions I'm questioning here.

But, go ahead, bang your head against the wall for the rest of your life.

Don't worry. I don't. Your assumption is, at least in this case, incorrect.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Actually, I never said that I knew the definition of every word that you used (at least not in the way you use them).

And regarding my definitions for words, I can state them if you ask.

No, I was really curious about very specific assumptions you were making.

Like, the one that stated that there's no such thing as independent morals.

And how somehow this is proven by three underlying assumptions:

1) that we exist in reality
2) that doing so means that our cognition is affected by external factors
3) and what it means for our morals to be "just a function of this"

1. all people exist in a world with external inputs.
2. external inputs affect (change the trends in) cognition
---------
everyone's cognition changes as a function of external inputs (there may be other factors too)

1. morals are a function of cognition
2. (the above conclusion)
---------
morals are a function of external inputs

not exactly reduced down enough to withstand philosophical scrutiny, but I'm sure you can follow my logic if you try to.

edit: I think you got stuck on my wording "a function of". There are all sorts of factors that affect morals. All I am saying is that external reality is ONE of those factors. The more you interact with the external world, the more the external world affects your morals.


Don't worry. I don't. Your assumption is, at least in this case, incorrect.

It wasn't an assumption. It seemed to be the logical consequence of your argument. Since it was so absurd I expected you to see why I didn't like your reasoning in the first place.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
1. all people exist in a world with external inputs.
2. external inputs affect (change the trends in) cognition
---------
everyone's cognition changes as a function of external inputs (there may be other factors too)

1. morals are a function of cognition
2. (the above conclusion)
---------
morals are a function of external inputs

not exactly reduced down enough to withstand philosophical scrutiny, but I'm sure you can follow my logic if you try to.

I can follow, but, frankly, I'm a bit confused by your presentation...

How about just doing a simple syllogism:

Axiom 1:
Axiom 2:
Axiom 3:
etc...

edit: I think you got stuck on my wording "a function of". There are all sorts of factors that affect morals. All I am saying is that external reality is ONE of those factors.

This I can agree with. All three parts of it.

One of my points is that there is lots of obscurity in the wording "x is a function of y".

The more you interact with the external world, the more the external world affects your morals.

While I would never say this cannot be true, I don't think it's necessarily true.

The meaning of the word "affects", is important, as is the word "independent" (not included here, but included in your original statement).

My point here is that, while the external world may affect our cognition, it does not necessarily do so in such a way that our morality could not be called independent.

Inherent in the definitions of a number of words in your statements(s) ("affects" and "independent", especially) are the implication that it does.

This is problematic, as your reasoning then becomes circular based on your definitions.

That's all I'm trying to point out. And it's a worthwhile point to be pointed out.

You made your statement as if it were necessarily true, and it's not.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
^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.

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"?
 
Top