The Nietzschean Ubermensch

[Stanton Moore]

Yes, I have read Thus Spake Zarathustra. I have also read Psychological types.
You talk about the utility of typology. How does it enhance your understand of Nietzsche? What utility is there in 'knowing' that the ubermensch is INTJ, other than to reinforce your own ego through that association?
Yes, I have 1400+ posts. I enjoy reading and responding to some discussions. I used to think that typology had meaning, then I saw that it's simply a way for immature minds to find some ego strength without having to do any self-searching or experiencing anything real. It's so much easier to 'circle the wagons' and rely on stereotypes and interpretation than to actually know who they are, or yourself.
You've gone on and on about what my type probably is, as you've determined through your elevated knowledge of typology, and yet, my original argument remains: you reduce another, and yourself, to a stereotype for completely self-referential purposes. You are only here, in this thread, to show what you ‘know’, the ultimate goal being ego strength.

So please, use your great intelligence to tell me how typology has enhanced your understanding of the ubermensch.

 

[Zarathustra]

From the three categories given at the beginning I say infj. I wouldn't say 'T' because I think Fe is more associated with charisma.

And what about the fact that Fe would have been anathema to Nietzsche?

And that the Ubermensch's values were all supposed to be self-derived?

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

Hm. I suppose we'd have to wonder if perhaps he aspired towards extraverted feeling and perhaps became cynical and hated it because he failed at achieving it. This is the same person who said 'Hell is other people' yes? Are all of his writings this cynical, or is there a turning point in them?

This second statement makes me think he may mean an enfp-ish nature. Did nietzche believe he was an example of the übermensch?

 

[Nicodemus]

This is the same person who said 'Hell is other people' yes?

That was Sartre, in a play.

Did nietzche believe he was an example of the übermensch?

I believe he thought a facet of his self was übermenschlich.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

I caught that. Thanks Nic!

Hmmm, then enfp isn't too far off is it?

 

[guesswho]

" A plan or desire to make a better world."

With what? A new bible!?

 

[Nicodemus]

With what? A new bible!?

Now I go alone, my disciples. You, too, go now, alone. Thus I want it.
Go away from me and resist Zarathustra! And even better: be ashamed of him! Perhaps he deceived you.
The man of knowledge must not only love his enemies, he must also be able to hate his friends.
One repays a teacher badly if one always remains nothing but a pupil. And why do you not want to pluck at my wreath?
You revere me; but what if your reverence tumbles one day? Beware lest a statue slay you.
You say that you believe in Zarathustra? But what matters Zarathustra? You are my believers—but what matter all believers?
You had not yet sought yourselves; and you found me. Thus do all believers; therefore all faith amounts to so little.
Now I bid you lose me and find yourselves; and only when you have all denied me will I return to you.

 

[Zarathustra]

Yes, I have read Thus Spake Zarathustra. I have also read Psychological types.

You talk about the utility of typology. How does it enhance your understand of Nietzsche?

Well, first off: I understood Nietzsche long before I understood typology; I haven't read too much Nietzsche for a good while; been there, done that; a great influence on my life; a kindred spirit if you will.

That being said, after taking an MBTI test several years ago (for the first time since elementary, or, perhaps, high school), I tested as INTJ (which I've tested as every time I've taken a test), and decided to read up on typology, and found the INTJ profile to be very accurate (far more accurate than any other profile, most of which don't fit me at all, some of which [ENTJ, then INFJ] fit me to a lesser extent).

Then, when I began studying up on the functions, I could see how much I identified with Ni, Te, and Fi, and in that particular order, and, to a lesser extent, Se (I could see how it is somewhat more difficult for me, something I have to consume more energy to engage in, and something which almost subconsciously rears its head in many background ways in my life). I also could see how Fe was something that I rather loathed. Ne, Ti, and Si, I have more complicated relationships with, which I need not go into here.

Then I joined this site, and got to see all the wide variety of characters, engage with different ones to different extents, and observe how our interactions played out.

Also, sometime around that time, I found out that Nietzsche is widely considered to be an INTJ.

Now, I had always (since about 6th grade) had a fascination with Nietzsche. For some reason, I felt drawn to him, compelled by him, since a very young age.

In college, this early compulsion finally had the opportunity to flower, as, in one of my fields of study, Nietzsche was one of the more prominent, highly held, and widely read figures.

So, I read him, over and over again, poring over every word, every sentence, every thought. I was consumed by him, probably for the better part of 3-5 years.

I had countless discussions about him, wrote countless papers about and critiquing his thought, and almost wrote an honors thesis about the Ubermensch.

So, in light of my fascination with, and what could reasonably be called obsession over, the man, I found it rather intriguing that both of us "were" INTJs.

So, to your question, how does my understanding of typology enhance my understanding of Nietzsche?

It offers possible insights into why so many of the things he wrote appeal to me, why he even wrote and thought them in the first place, why he saw certain things in certain ways, other things in other ways, and the same things in different ways. It offers possible insights into why he valued certain things, and did not value other things, and offers what I could say is strong evidence as to why he felt the way he did about many different topics:

1. Perspectivism (*cough* Ni *cough*)
2. Philosophers (*cough* Ti *cough*)
3. "The herd" (*cough* Fe *cough*)

...and many others.

Does that answer your question? Cuz I could go on, if you'd like me to.

You, of course, could take these observations in stride, or you could bury even deeper into your aforechosen hole, and, like a cornered rodent, gnash your teeth at everything I say.

Your choice...

What utility is there in 'knowing' that the ubermensch is INTJ...

I never said this.

...other than to reinforce your own ego through that association?

Nor am I doing this.

I literally have never even possessed the thought that the Ubermensch need be an INTJ.

I used to think that typology had meaning, then I saw that it's simply a way for immature minds to find some ego strength without having to do any self-searching or experiencing anything real.

This is reductionistic thinking.

See the bolded: that's where you become reductionistic.

Typology can be used in that way.

But it needn't be.

Do you see the problem you're creating by being reductionistic?

Did you use typology in this way before (when you did believe in it), and so, having "learned your lesson", are now projecting this belief onto others?

Frankly, this is what it sounds like...

(I'm not sure whether that is the case -- I like to leave my mind open to alternate possibilities [a quality I have always possessed, but have since learned is characteristic of Ni-doms] -- but it sounds like this is what's happening...)

It's so much easier to 'circle the wagons' and rely on stereotypes and interpretation than to actually know who they are, or yourself.

I agree with this completely. It is easier to do this.

But that doesn't mean that studying, learning, and using typology need be any of these negative things.

Any tool can be handled poorly, or it can be handled well.

Even a poor tool, when handled well, can be used to great benefit.

Same goes for typology...

You've gone on and on about what my type probably is...

Just a few quick posts, really...

I've spent much more time answering your questions in this post.

...as you've determined...

Not determined.

They're simply working hypotheses.

...through your elevated knowledge of typology...

Why thank you.

I'd have to say that my ability to accept this compliment depends entirely on your definition of knowledge.

But, based on the definition I would use in this instance, I would be willing to accept it.

...and yet, my original argument remains: you reduce another, and yourself, to a stereotype for completely self-referential purposes.

:zzz:

The fact of the matter is that, now, for the third time, you are engaging in reductionistic thought, by simply assuming that I am reducing people to what you've said I am.

And, by doing so, you are actually engaging in stereotyping more than anybody here has, by creating a category of "typology user" and "non-typology user", and simply deprecating the activities of anyone you deem a typology user.

You are only here, in this thread, to show what you ‘know’, the ultimate goal being ego strength.

Once again, my friend, you are being reductionistic.

For now the fourth time.

And once again, I've bolded for you the part where you start being so.

Also, pray tell how the same accusation could not squarely be laid against you: how are you not here to show what you "know", and for "ego strength"?

Interestingly enough, and I almost noted this earlier, what you're really saying is that we're all (well, really, you only accused me of it) only here for Will To Power.

And, even more interesting, is that, as much as I find Nietzsche's primary idea insightful and compelling, I also think he was a bit reductionistic in his expounding of the matter.

So please, use your great intelligence to tell me how typology has enhanced your understanding of the ubermensch.

To be honest, as I mentioned earlier, I've never really cared to spend much time thinking about a relationship between typology and the Ubermensch.

I think the Ubermensch could possibly be of any type (not necessarily, though), and, in all honesty, based off my thinking of type, might even transcend type.

I could see one making arguments that the Ubermensch would have to be an N, but I don't know if that's necessarily the case.

I could also see one saying that the Ubermensch would have to be an Ni-dom, or at least a high Ni-user, but I don't know if that's necessarily the case, either.

Most compellingly, I could probably see an interesting argument for the Ubermensch being someone who properly integrates their shadow, and this, actually, is a very compelling area of thought, in my opinion.

But, yeah, that's about as much energy and time I've really spent thinking about it, because, to be honest, I don't think about the Ubermensch nearly as much as I used to, and I don't find trying to make a link between a particular type and potential for Ubermenschitude all that interesting or compelling an idea.

As I more or less indicated at the beginning of this thread:

It is rather ironic that I, of all people, tend to really fucking hate these stupid Ubermensch threads...

Hell, Nietzsche himself more or less threw out the idea of the Ubermensch, in favor of Eternal Recurrence, so why should I care to draw some spurious correlation between that idea and one of the 16 types?

 

[Savage Idealist]

Although I've only started reading Thus SPoke Zarathustra (up to the Pale Criminal section) I can assert with some strong certainty that Zarathustra is an INTJ, much like the author Friedrich Nietzsche, whom clearly implemented certain parts of his own personality into the character. That being said, any sort of Nietzche overman could be any type, I myself am trying to emulate the ideas of the overman and become one myself, and I'm ENFP, almost the complete opposite of the INTJ.

Also, the first traits mentioned concerning the overman by the OP are from the TVtropes section of the overman, which I find to be horribly simplistic and crude; to be an overman there are so many requirments, such as a rejection of the current day morals in favor of ones own, a complete lack of resentment or hatred, enjoying the idea of eternal recurence, and about a dozen other factors.

 

[Zarathustra]

Although I've only started reading Thus SPoke Zarathustra (up to the Pale Criminal section) I can assert with some strong certainty that Zarathustra is an INTJ, much like the author Friedrich Nietzsche, whom clearly implemented certain parts of his own personality into the character. That being said, any sort of Nietzche overman could be any type, I myself am trying to emulate the ideas of the overman and become one myself, and I'm ENFP, almost the complete opposite of the INTJ.

Also, the first traits mentioned concerning the overman by the OP are from the TVtropes section of the overman, which I find to be horribly simplistic and crude; to be an overman there are so many requirments, such as a rejection of the current day morals in favor of ones own, a complete lack of resentment or hatred, enjoying the idea of eternal recurence, and about a dozen other factors.

This.

 

[Nicodemus]

This.

That is not a complete sentence, boy. I am sorry.

 

[Zarathustra]

That is not a complete sentence, boy. I am sorry.

Drunk again?

 

[Nicodemus]

Not quite. I am trying to write an essay and have yet to find the perfect beginning.

 

[Zarathustra]

Thesis?

 

[Stanton Moore]

All conclusions are reductions. You know this.
I speak from my experience of seeing this phenomenon before: a person like yourself, wishing to demonstrate his mental acuity, posts something wherein a historical (or fictitious) figure that he finds admirable, has a type that reflects his own belief about himself. You are not alone in this form of confirmation bias. Lots of otherwise intelligent people fall under the ego spell without knowing it

You state that you think the ubermensch could be of any type, yet you already decide that he is INTJ in an earlier post. So you backtracked from this ‘reduction’ of the ubermensch. I assume you realized that you can’t support your own conclusions in the face of your own ego needs, now that you’ve been made aware of them.

 

[Zarathustra]

All conclusions are reductions. You know this.
I speak from my experience of seeing this phenomenon before: a person like yourself, wishing to demonstrate his mental acuity, posts something wherein a historical (or fictitious) figure that he finds admirable, has a type that reflects his own belief about himself. You are not alone in this form of confirmation bias. Lots of otherwise intelligent people fall under the ego spell without knowing it

You state that you think the ubermensch could be of any type, yet you already decide that he is INTJ in an earlier post. So you backtracked from this ‘reduction’ of the ubermensch. I assume you realized that you can’t support your own conclusions in the face of your own ego needs, now that you’ve been made aware of them.

*gnash, gnash, gnash*

No offense, but this post just made it pathetic.

Your integrity would appreciate if you were to just sit down and concede.

I didn't even say any such thing...

If you consider Zarathustra (from the book) the prototype for the Superman, I don't see how you could go with INFJ (at least exclusively)...

That character had to have been an INTJ (likely 5w4).

Jesus, however, was likely an INFJ, and, in my opinion, Nietzsche would probably consider him closer to the Ubermensch than almost any other historical figure...

You have repeatedly shown a penchant for not reading what is clearly there in front of you, so maybe you should take another gander.

Of course, the tenets of logic seem often to elude you, so maybe even a second (or third) look won't do the trick...

Also, not that you'll care (and not that I'll care that you don't), but now I'm sure you're an INFP.

Mistaking conviction (Fi) for logic (Ti). It's sad really, when you see it.

Especially when that conviction blatantly contradicts the evidence in hand.

 

[Nicodemus]

Thesis?

The contest between the mos italicus and the mos gallicus in the jurisprudence of the university of the middle ages mirrors and anticipates the process of enlightenment that, in central Europe, would peak hundreds of years later.

I know what I am going to write, I am just lacking the words right now.

 

[Athenian200]

Yes, I have read Thus Spake Zarathustra. I have also read Psychological types.

Well, at least you've done your research. I'll take that under consideration as I comment on the rest of your post.

You talk about the utility of typology. How does it enhance your understand of Nietzsche? What utility is there in 'knowing' that the ubermensch is INTJ, other than to reinforce your own ego through that association?

I do not claim to know what type the Ubermensch is, nor I do I believe that the person you're addressing has done so. In fact, any person who knows typology well knows that it is impossible to "know" what type a person is. You can suspect a person's type, but that's all. To imply that a person holds such a belief when they have not expressly stated it, could be considered a veiled insult to their intelligence, aside from being a straw man argument.

The main utility in determining one's personal perspective on the type of the Ubermensch would be to refine that archetype in one's own mind... and thus, to better understand what Nietzsche was thinking when he wrote it. Typology provides a language for discussing common differences in the way people and societies construct their value systems and perspectives on data. This seems to have quite a lot of potential utility, does it not?

I used to think that typology had meaning, then I saw that it's simply a way for immature minds to find some ego strength without having to do any self-searching or experiencing anything real. It's so much easier to 'circle the wagons' and rely on stereotypes and interpretation than to actually know who they are, or yourself.

If I may be so bold, this seems like an underdeveloped Ne perspective on Ni and Ti. You elevate the importance of experiencing something "real," and "self-searching", by which you seem to mean something external, and/or something subjective. You seem to be emphasizing the importance of these elements of reality, while dismissing those who think differently as using as "a bunch of stereotypes" and "interpretation." You devalue the archetypes that exist within our collective consciousness as a culture, and do not appreciate interpretive logic. In other words, friend, you do not appreciate Ni or Ti. That could be why you do not appreciate Jungian typology.

You've gone on and on about what my type probably is, as you've determined through your elevated knowledge of typology, and yet, my original argument remains: you reduce another, and yourself, to a stereotype for completely self-referential purposes. You are only here, in this thread, to show what you ‘know’, the ultimate goal being ego strength.

I believe that you are projecting that goal onto others. When you say that typology is merely "reducing" others to a sterotype for self-referential purposes, you must be describing what you did when you used typology. To assume that others who use typology are doing the same is quite arrogant, and frankly, unfair on your part.

I personally use typology in an attempt to understand the dynamics of people's interactions with one another, to understand and predict how conflict arises. I do not use it simply to gratify my own ego, nor is my main purpose to compare others to myself. I'm far more interested in comparing them to each other in order to develop a working understanding of social units and the ways in which they work (and don't work).

I will concede that to some extent typology reduces people to archetypes, but that is because it is not a substitute for getting to know people on a personal level. It was never intended to be. It was intended as a shorthand language to give a broad overview of what a person is like if you don't know them already, or to discuss how different sorts of people tend to relate to each other in a group. It is not as precise or applicable to a specific person/situation as more individualized language, but it is actually more useful than individualized language when discussing things on the macro scale.

 

[Stanton Moore]

@Z

Once a small child came up to me and called me a fucker. I thought it was pretty funny to called names by a 6 year old!
I'll take the same attitude to your ad hominem attack.

You're right, you said that Zarathustra was INTJ. I missread your post. Still, my conclusion stands.

It's interesting to me that you have some after me with such venom. Is that type realted too, or simply an admission?

 

[Zarathustra]

The contest between the mos italicus and the mos gallicus in the jurisprudence of the university of the middle ages mirrors and anticipates the process of enlightenment that, in central Europe, would peak hundreds of years later.

I know what I am going to write, I am just lacking the words right now.

I know I could Google this, but what are "mos italicus" and "mos gallicus"?