Ubermensch in Real Life

[Lark]

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

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.

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.
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.

Well, Nietzsche I think was on a par with Robert Nisbet's citation about social class and proprietorship in his book Conservatism, in this book Nisbet discusses a conservative critic who attacked Rockerfella not for his shooting of miners who threatened his property and profits by striking but for not shooting them earlier.

The idea being that institutions like property and legacies such as industrial or commercial giants are worth huge sacrifices, including the lives of others. I kind of see Nietzsche's version of the Ubermensch being those individuals. I agree with you that the inbred, inheritors of wealth are not admirable on their merits or personal achievements but Nietzsche I dont believe was thinking that way because someone could be personally brilliant but not change the world.

Its the great man theory of history versus the industrial or materialistic theory. I think both theories of history are only partially correct. Although when I think about it my familiarity with The Geneology of Morals or AntiChrist mean that the idea that the strong protect the weak would be totally anathema to Nietzsche, that's like what he attacked as a slave religion.

In terms of equality, I think that people are different in terms of talents, they do develop different but I'm not sure that the rewards that flow to them should necessarily be dictated by their merits, I dont believe the world is a meritocracy but even if it where its not reason to suppose that those who are ugly, unpopular, untalented etc. should perish simply because they are that way. Most anti-egalitarian theorising at one point or another has to address that one and a lot of the time its a philosophical blind spot, they prefer to think about the just desserts benefit those who are most deserving without giving a thought to how that's decided and then what happens to the "others" and losers.

 

[Zarathustra]

Its the great man theory of history versus the industrial or materialistic theory. I think both theories of history are only partially correct. Although when I think about it my familiarity with The Geneology of Morals or AntiChrist mean that the idea that the strong protect the weak would be totally anathema to Nietzsche, that's like what he attacked as a slave religion.

I disagree with this interpretation.

See my own and SolitaryWalker's comments about an independently-minded Christian mystic.

The same applies for someone who actually would care about the weak.

It would just have to be done so out of genuine independent mindedness.

This, in my opinion, is a common misconception about Nietzsche's philosophy.

I would add that I believe he intentionally made it so.

He had Te motives for everything he did.

I believe sometimes he stretched beyond his own actual beliefs in order to stretch the consciousness of his reader.

Such he believed was necessary to break them from the shackles of any thought other than their own...

In terms of equality, I think that people are different in terms of talents, they do develop different but I'm not sure that the rewards that flow to them should necessarily be dictated by their merits, I dont believe the world is a meritocracy but even if it where its not reason to suppose that those who are ugly, unpopular, untalented etc. should perish simply because they are that way. Most anti-egalitarian theorising at one point or another has to address that one and a lot of the time its a philosophical blind spot, they prefer to think about the just desserts benefit those who are most deserving without giving a thought to how that's decided and then what happens to the "others" and losers.

C'mon, Lark.

You're a smart guy.

If you want to talk about philosophical blind spots, how bout this construction you made in bold...

No one's saying that the the ugly, unpopular and untalented should perish.

What is being said is merely what the Good Book says, ""If a man will not work, he shall not eat."

 

[Lark]

I disagree with this interpretation.

Alright, I think you're wrong. I dont know why it should be so shocking or that people should try to deny this aspect of Nietzsche, its pretty common place and in so far as I dont believe modern society is not and can not be christian it is because its morality conforms to Nietzsche's ethic.

C'mon, Lark.

You're a smart guy.

If you want to talk about philosophical blind spots, how bout this construction you made in bold...

No one's saying that the the ugly, unpopular and untalented should perish.

What is being said is merely what the Good Book says, ""If a man will not work, he shall not eat."

What construction? What blind spot? The reality is that most anti-egalitarian arguments do not ever face the implications of how to deal with the undeserving, judged so by their own conclusions.

And does your final point relate to my point? I see that as a different matter altogether.

Also what is the context of that citation from the "Good book", the devil can quote scripture when he wants to you know, and I ask because at one time I've read that as a quote from militant socialists, even anarcho-syndicalists, to attack proprietorship or, in Marx's words, "well to do idlers" but at another a quote from that same class of individuals attacking those who survive on benefits or who wont work harder for less money.

I tend to believe that's a pretty context specific quotation too, like a lot of other conservative utopianism, it harks to a time when people had the means to with good fortune and personal effort be self-supporting through subsistence farming. In the modern mixed economy that's not the case and its mere words employed to fit an agenda, generally condemning someone.

 

[Zarathustra]

Alright, I think you're wrong. I dont know why it should be so shocking or that people should try to deny this aspect of Nietzsche, its pretty common place and in so far as I dont believe modern society is not and can not be christian it is because its morality conforms to Nietzsche's ethic.

And how am I wrong?

I've provided you a deeper explanation than the very surface-level typical belief of someone who has cursorily read the man, but you didn't even touch upon what I brought up.

Once again: Nietzsche was not, as you claimed, simply against helping the weak, under any circumstances.

That's not to say that Nietzsche would be any sort of fan of socialism, or anything of the like.

But being against socialism is very different from not being willing to help the weak.

What construction? What blind spot? The reality is that most anti-egalitarian arguments do not ever face the implications of how to deal with the undeserving, judged so by their own conclusions.

The construction that I bolded, namely:

...I dont believe the world is a meritocracy but even if it where its not reason to suppose that those who are ugly, unpopular, untalented etc. should perish simply because they are that way.

That which you wrote above is a construction.

The particularly problematic part is the part I bolded.

I already explained it in my last post, but I'll do so again:

No one is saying the group you mentioned should perish...

They are simply saying that this group should not be lazy and that they should work, if they expect to be able to "eat".

In other words, that they shouldn't expect to live off other people's labor.

And does your final point relate to my point? I see that as a different matter altogether.

As described above, yes, what I said was very relevant to your point.

Also what is the context of that citation from the "Good book", the devil can quote scripture when he wants to you know, and I ask because at one time I've read that as a quote from militant socialists, even anarcho-syndicalists, to attack proprietorship or, in Marx's words, "well to do idlers" but at another a quote from that same class of individuals attacking those who survive on benefits or who wont work harder for less money.

Taken in the context from the good book, it would specifically mean those who are lazy and aren't willing to work should not expect to reap any of the rewards of society's labors.

Much like that story we're (hopefully) told when we're children... what is it? Little Red Hen?

Seeing as how that is the spirit of the original, those who are using it to attack proprietorship are taking it completely out of its original context.

I tend to believe that's a pretty context specific quotation too, like a lot of other conservative utopianism, it harks to a time when people had the means to with good fortune and personal effort be self-supporting through subsistence farming. In the modern mixed economy that's not the case and its mere words employed to fit an agenda, generally condemning someone.

I do actually agree with this to a decent extent (considered it even when I was deciding whether or not to include it).

Nevertheless, if one wants to work in this society, one still, for the most part, can, structural unemployment aside.

Just because economies have evolved doesn't make the principle any different.

 

[Lark]

And how am I wrong?

I've provided you a deeper explanation than the very surface-level typical belief of someone who has cursorily read the man, but you didn't even touch upon what I brought up.

Once again: Nietzsche was not, as you claimed, simply against helping the weak, under any circumstances.

That's not to say that Nietzsche would be any sort of fan of socialism, or anything of the like.

But being against socialism is very different from not being willing to help the weak.

Dude, I'll bow to your analytical brilliance because being someone who has only cursorily read the man, as in read pretty much all his books, I never detected any doubling back on and some how accepting Christian mysticism as you suggested, nor do I see any of the kindliness which you suggest is actually Nietzsche's crux, not in the least, so it must have been heavily disguised. In fact I think its a little like describing Marx as a closet free marketeer.

You're entitled to your opinion though.

The construction that I bolded, namely:

That which you wrote above is a construction.

The particularly problematic part is the part I bolded.

I already explained it in my last post, but I'll do so again:

No one is saying the group you mentioned should perish...

They are simply saying that this group should not be lazy and that they should work, if they expect to be able to "eat".

In other words, that they shouldn't expect to live off other people's labor.

OK, I wasnt questioning the logic of your argument, I dont know how you get from arguments about merit/dessert and what constitutes merit/dessert to work ethics though, which was my point, I dont know what you mean by "construct", apart from implying that my view is false and yours is objective, I could as easily dismiss yours as construct, or perhaps they both are, what do you think? I'm not really that interested in those sorts of circular arguments.

As described above, yes, what I said was very relevant to your point.

Yeah but then you're conflating a developing dialogue about dessert with one about work ethics. Anyway.

Taken in the context from the good book, it would specifically mean those who are lazy and aren't willing to work should not expect to reap any of the rewards of society's labors.

Hmm, really? I dont remember much of that in the bible to be honest, I do remember a lot about the jubilee year, leaving ground fallow and whatever grew was a commonweal for beast and wanderer, lots of other instances of communism in the old and new testament.

The whole import of Jesus' teaching seems to be that the world is a gift for all to enjoy but the man creates obsticles to its enjoyment, mainly the legal precepts and practices of every age militate against this.

Much like that story we're (hopefully) told when we're children... what is it? Little Red Hen?

Seeing as how that is the spirit of the original, those who are using it to attack proprietorship are taking it completely out of its original context.

That made me laugh a little. Ah yes, the Little

Red

Hen, used as an allegorical tale in the UK labour movement about the productive classes contrary the leisure classes for a long time. Its not out of context at all. The original meanings of these tales are quick forgotten as they're appropriated by new ideologues to suit own ends.

You could have been closer if you'd mentioned the Ant and The Grasshopper, its more of a straight up capitalist morality tale, at least one of productivity, accumulation/frugal saving vs. living for the day.

I do actually agree with this to a decent extent (considered it even when I was deciding whether or not to include it).

Nevertheless, if one wants to work in this society, one still, for the most part, can, structural unemployment aside.

Just because economies have evolved doesn't make this principle any different.

Well which is it? Its either an ideological hangover or it isnt, there's plenty of reasons for productivity and work ethics besides those grounded in assumptions of full employment or self-sufficiency which belong to an entirely different epoch.

The reality is that in a global economy and context the entire effort of the entire human race will not be needed to supply the needs of everyone, nor even the needs of national or global one percenters (the top one percent richest).

 

[Zarathustra]

Dude, I'll bow to your analytical brilliance because being someone who has only cursorily read the man, as in read pretty much all his books, I never detected any doubling back on and some how accepting Christian mysticism as you suggested, nor do I see any of the kindliness which you suggest is actually Nietzsche's crux, not in the least, so it must have been heavily disguised. In fact I think its a little like describing Marx as a closet free marketeer.

You're entitled to your opinion though.



OK, I wasnt questioning the logic of your argument, I dont know how you get from arguments about merit/dessert and what constitutes merit/dessert to work ethics though, which was my point, I dont know what you mean by "construct", apart from implying that my view is false and yours is objective, I could as easily dismiss yours as construct, or perhaps they both are, what do you think? I'm not really that interested in those sorts of circular arguments.



Yeah but then you're conflating a developing dialogue about dessert with one about work ethics. Anyway.



Hmm, really? I dont remember much of that in the bible to be honest, I do remember a lot about the jubilee year, leaving ground fallow and whatever grew was a commonweal for beast and wanderer, lots of other instances of communism in the old and new testament.

The whole import of Jesus' teaching seems to be that the world is a gift for all to enjoy but the man creates obsticles to its enjoyment, mainly the legal precepts and practices of every age militate against this.



That made me laugh a little. Ah yes, the Little Hen, used as an allegorical tale in the UK labour movement about the productive classes contrary the leisure classes for a long time. Its not out of context at all. The original meanings of these tales are quick forgotten as they're appropriated by new ideologues to suit own ends.

You could have been closer if you'd mentioned the Ant and The Grasshopper, its more of a straight up capitalist morality tale, at least one of productivity, accumulation/frugal saving vs. living for the day.




Well which is it? Its either an ideological hangover or it isnt, there's plenty of reasons for productivity and work ethics besides those grounded in assumptions of full employment or self-sufficiency which belong to an entirely different epoch.

The reality is that in a global economy and context the entire effort of the entire human race will not be needed to supply the needs of everyone, nor even the needs of national or global one percenters (the top one percent richest).

Gotta run.

Will be back to respond later.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

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..

"Arbitrary" is too strong of a claim to make. Its quite obvious that a reflective person is more independently minded than a philistine. Besides, "arbitrariness" wasn't your initial point, your initial point was that its impossible to be a over-man because no-one is a completely independent thinker.

I see no problem with terms that have arbitrary threshold points in some spectrum...

If the "threshold" was arbitrary, any distinction between an independent thinker and a mindless conformist would be meaningless. To assert that a certain notion is arbitrary means to maintain that it is entirely a figment of our imagination or a result of some bias or an illusion.

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.

The question of independent thought has little to do with views of any particular group of persons, there is an objective way of distinguishing between an independently minded individual and one who slavishly conforms to the views of others.

The question of whether this or that particular person is an independent thinker should be answered on the basis of a continuum rather than a dichotomy. Everyone is an independent thinker to a certain degree. You may ask how independently minded must you be in order to be considered an over-man? That question isn't very important, the more of an independent thinker you are, the more of an over-man you are. The over-man should be seen as an inachievable ideal of completely independent thought, a person should not try to meet this ideal, but to get as close as possible to attaining the cardinal virtues of this Nietzschean hero. Independenc of thought is certainly one of such positive character qualities.

 

[Zarathustra]

^ Very much agree, SolitaryWalker.

Now let me ask you something I've had a bit more trouble with myself...

For the sake of the question, it would be very beneficial to first watch the following video and read this story from ESPN:

Floyd Mayweather Rips Manny Pacquiao in Racist Video Rant

Now, here's my question: Now, what's the difference between a real-life ubermensch and a selfish, self-centered, piece of shit life Floyd Mayweather? Is it possible that Mayweather could be an ubermensch? The guy is arguably one of the greatest ever at his sport, has more money than God, has presumably done all this through faith in himself, hard work, talent, and will, and frankly, doesn't really seem to give a damn what anyone thinks about him (independently minded?)...

So, do you think you could make a definitive argument for why Floyd Mayweather is not an ubermensch?

I have some arguments that I could make, some more, and some less, convincing, but none strong enough that I could honestly say they put a definitive nail in the coffin. That's not to say that he is an ubermensch... it's just to say that it's a bit difficult to definitively say that he's not.

Thoughts?

(Lark, I'm still planning on responding to your post.)

 

[KDude]

I think that a few philosophers had existential ideals that were somewhat interchangeable with Nietzsche's. If one isn't willing to call an independent Christian mystic (to use one example above) an ubermensch, you could use Keirkegaard's knight of faith. The general idea behind both is similar though.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

^ Very much agree, SolitaryWalker.

Now let me ask you something I've had a bit more trouble with myself...

For the sake of the question, it would be very beneficial to first watch the following video and read this story from ESPN:

Floyd Mayweather Rips Manny Pacquiao in Racist Video Rant

Now, here's my question: Now, what's the difference between a real-life ubermensch and a selfish, self-centered, piece of shit life Floyd Mayweather? Is it possible that Mayweather could be an ubermensch? The guy is arguably one of the greatest ever at his sport, has more money than God, has presumably done all this through faith in himself, hard work, talent, and will, and frankly, doesn't really seem to give a damn what anyone thinks about him (independently minded?)...]

I have no idea who this character is, yet, "not giving a damn about what anyone thinks" does not make one an independent thinker. We are susceptible to unconscious influences at every avenue of our daily lives and only the most self-consciously reflective of people can separate their original views from those the views of others that they've passively received.

Its typically very difficult for a non-intellectual to be an autonomous thinker. I would not go so far as to say that its impossible for them to be independently-minded, however, they will have a hard time achieving that feat for the reasons described above.

The general idea behind both is similar though.

There are profound differences between the moral philosophies represented by the Overman and the Knight of Faith. For one, self-empowerement is a salient principle of Nietzsche's moral philosophy, yet Kierkegaard will have none of that. Even more significantly, Kierkegaard does not endorse the Nietzschean principle of self-affirmation and promotes a humble Christian lifesyle. One of his severest criticisms of the institutional church was that it did not endorse genuine Christian humility and charity; as was well known, its members indulged in crass materialism and self-congratulatory morality (See one of his last works, The Attacks Upon Christendom.).


Far from being similar to the core of Nietzsche's teachings, Kierkegaard's Knight of Faith embodies the anathema of the Overman.

 

[KDude]

I just mean that it's similar in that the Knight of Faith ideal is almost an insane level of individualistic devotion. Where only a private conception of God and the believer's faith mattered (it has nothing to do with embracing Keirkegaard's moral philosophy. The Knight of Faith makes reference to no outside philosophy. Or rather, believes God transcends even ethics. And Keirkegaard himself didn't think he came close to this level of faith. He was just in awe of it).

The fact that a God concept comes into the equation (and not just "will") does make a big difference though. Except, the Knight of Faith's god isn't one easily defined as good or evil either. He used Abraham as an example of a Knight of Faith: A man whose god went beyond any typical understanding of morality, and asked him to sacrifice his own son. The irony is that his god's ultimate test was to "tempt" Abraham into being moral - yet, he decided to equate only his faith as the right course. Not morality. So it might as well be compared to will.

 

[Zarathustra]

 

[redacted]

"Arbitrary" is too strong of a claim to make. Its quite obvious that a reflective person is more independently minded than a philistine. Besides, "arbitrariness" wasn't your initial point, your initial point was that its impossible to be a over-man because no-one is a completely independent thinker.

I had two very interrelated initial points..

"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."

If the "threshold" was arbitrary, any distinction between an independent thinker and a mindless conformist would be meaningless. To assert that a certain notion is arbitrary means to maintain that it is entirely a figment of our imagination or a result of some bias or an illusion.

Ah, I think you're using the term differently from what I meant (my mistake probably -- since you're so damn literal )

I meant that for each threshold point you come up with, one could argue the point could be a little higher or lower in the spectrum.

It's like the Mensa threshold -- 132 IQ. Why not 131? Who knows... They had to pick something -- but it's not like there's even a visible difference between 131 and 132...

That was what I meant -- if you define some line for "overman", it doesn't necessarily mean that's THE OBJECTIVE DEFINITION.

The question of independent thought has little to do with views of any particular group of persons, there is an objective way of distinguishing between an independently minded individual and one who slavishly conforms to the views of others.

The question of whether this or that particular person is an independent thinker should be answered on the basis of a continuum rather than a dichotomy. Everyone is an independent thinker to a certain degree. You may ask how independently minded must you be in order to be considered an over-man? That question isn't very important, the more of an independent thinker you are, the more of an over-man you are. The over-man should be seen as an inachievable ideal of completely independent thought, a person should not try to meet this ideal, but to get as close as possible to attaining the cardinal virtues of this Nietzschean hero. Independenc of thought is certainly one of such positive character qualities.

The bolded is what I was trying to say in the first place. That's why I think speculating about who is an overman and who isn't as if it isn't just a matter of opinion is silly.

Clearly, some people are further to one side of the spectrum than others, but to say that it's somehow objective is begging for a stupid "nah-ah!!" "yah-hah!!" argument.

 

[Wonkavision]

Dude, I'll bow to your analytical brilliance because being someone who has only cursorily read the man, as in read pretty much all his books, I never detected any doubling back on and some how accepting Christian mysticism as you suggested, nor do I see any of the kindliness which you suggest is actually Nietzsche's crux, not in the least, so it must have been heavily disguised. In fact I think its a little like describing Marx as a closet free marketeer.

Well, obviously you haven't read Nietzsche's "Taking It All Back: Why Slave Morality Is Actually Pretty Cool."

 

[Nicodemus]

My candidate is Oscar Wilde.

 

[Wonkavision]

Well, if being an independent thinker is the only requirement, then Victor is the supreme example of Ubermensch.

 

[Nicodemus]

One also has to be a mensch.

 

[redacted]

Well, if being an independent thinker is the only requirement, then Victor is the supreme example of Ubermensch.

Except his obsession with what studies find.

-------------------------------------

Honestly, I don't think being an overman is necessarily something to strive for. There's good reason to defer to other people's opinion in some circumstances; we just don't have enough processing power to think everything through. Nothing wrong with delegating (for lack of a better word) thinking about something to someone else, as long as you have some good metric for who to trust in terms of their judgment.

A true overman would spend so much time thinking through everything for themselves that they couldn't do very many tangible things -- no one has the computational resources for that.

What I strive for is a balance between thinking for myself and maintaining good relationships. When new information is thrown my way, I have a larger computational pool than an overman would. And it's not like I can't check the answers other people come to.

 

[KDude]

A true overman would spend so much time thinking through everything

I'm pretty sure they don't

 

[Void]

My candidate is Oscar Wilde.

I am pretty sure Oscar Wilde was not what Nietzche has in mind when he proposed the ubermensch concept.

this is what one Ambrose Bierce had to say about your esteemed mr wilde

"That sovereign of insufferables, Oscar Wilde has ensued with his opulence of twaddle and his penury of sense. He has mounted his hind legs and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck, to the capital edification of circumjacent fools and foolesses, fooling with their foolers. He has tossed off the top of his head and uttered himself in copious overflows of ghastly bosh. The ineffable dunce has nothing to say and says it—says it with a liberal embellishment of bad delivery, embroidering it with reasonless vulgarities of attitude, gesture and attire. There never was an impostor so hateful, a blockhead so stupid, a crank so variously and offensively daft. Therefore is the she fool enamored of the feel of his tongue in her ear to tickle her understanding."

Bierce’s denunciation continued:

"The limpid and spiritless vacuity of this intellectual jelly-fish is in ludicrous contrast with the rude but robust mental activities that he came to quicken and inspire. Not only has he no thought, but no thinker. His lecture is mere vebal ditchwater—meaningingless, trite and without coherence. It lacks even the nastiness that exalts and refines his verse. Moreover, it is obviously his own; he had not even the energy and independence to steal it. And so, with a knowledge that would equip and idiot to dispute with a cast-iron dog, and eloquence to qualify him for the duties of a caller on a hog-ranche, and an imagination adequate to the conception of a tom-cat, when fired by contemplation of a fiddle-string, this consummate and star-like youth, missing everything his heaven-appointed functions and offices, wanders about, posing as a statute of himself, and, like the sun-smitten image of Memnon, emitting meaningless murmurs in the blaze of women’s eyes. He makes me tired."

Bierce’s amazing invective ended with:

"And this gawky gowk has the divine effrontery to link his name with those of Swinburne, Rossetti and Morris—this dunghill he-hen would fly with eagles. He dares to set his tongue to the honored name of Keats. He is the leader, quoth’a, of a renaissance in art, this man who cannot draw–of a revival of letters, this man who cannot write! This little and looniest of a brotherhood of simpletons, whom the wicked wits of London, haling him dazed from his obscurity, have crowned and crucified as King of the Cranks, has accepted the distinction in stupid good faith and our foolish people take him at his word. Mr. Wilde is pinnacled upon a dazzling eminence but the earth still trembles to the dull thunder of the kicks that set him up."