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:
Damn, I thought I'd be able to figure out what the hell ubermensch really means by reading those 19 posts.
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.
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.
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.
Gandhi was a thorough-going altruist with ascetic tendencies, he denied himself sexual pleasures...
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.
That statement is so riddled with presuppositions I don't even want to start disentangling it all...
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 have trouble spelling ubermänch in my head while reading this. It is superman in english, goddammit! :steam:
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"
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.
Apparently you don't realize that a person cannot make a sound point unless their assumptions are true.
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?
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.
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"
Don't worry. I don't. Your assumption is, at least in this case, incorrect.
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.