Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Tadashi wrote:
I always saw the Ubermensch as a being beyond humanity, with man being a bridge between the ape and the Ubermensch. He/she would be a god for all intents and purposes to lesser beings.

Not really. The Ubermensch was largely interpreted to mean a figure who could create his own sets of morals and impose them on the 'degenerated' morals of other-worldliness (all the sets of morals that promise acheivement beyond human existence, i.e. Christianity) and those of this-worldliness that emulates the ideals of other-worldliness (statism). It was often depicted as amoral elitism, but since the Ubermensch sets down a sets of morals, you can't really say it's amoral.

The figure often cited as example is Napoleon Bonaparte, since his 'lack' of conventional morals allowed him to make Europe his bitch.

It has no 'evolutionnary' meaning, other than perhaps Nietzsche considered priests as thouroughly pathetic and inferior beings.


Edit : Funnily enough, it's probable that Nieztsche would have denounced transhumanism as another form of 'other-worldliness'.

Testify wrote:

LordofHats wrote:To be honest people have been reading Nietzsche for over a century and scholars still can't agree what the feth he was on about.

Have you ever tried to read Nietzsche? And people say Mein Kamf is bad...

I have... hence, the sig. And I really think that you should clarify your statement, because Nietzsche is often misunderstood to be associated with the Nazi party because of the mistranslations of Ubermensch.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Tadashi wrote:
I always saw the Ubermensch as a being beyond humanity, with man being a bridge between the ape and the Ubermensch. He/she would be a god for all intents and purposes to lesser beings.

Not really. The Ubermensch was largely interpreted to mean a figure who could create his own sets of morals and impose them on the 'degenerated' morals of other-worldliness (all the sets of morals that promise acheivement beyond human existence, i.e. Christianity) and those of this-worldliness that emulates the ideals of other-worldliness (statism). It was often depicted as amoral elitism, but since the Ubermensch sets down a sets of morals, you can't really say it's amoral.

The figure often cited as example is Napoleon Bonaparte, since his 'lack' of conventional morals allowed him to make Europe his bitch.

It has no 'evolutionnary' meaning, other than perhaps Nietzsche considered priests as thouroughly pathetic and inferior beings.


Edit : Funnily enough, it's probable that Nieztsche would have denounced transhumanism as another form of 'other-worldliness'.

I've always read Zarathustra and the concept of the Ubermensch as something that syncs very well with Tsunetomo Yamamoto's Hagakure in that both strive to allow man to rise above the yoke of otherworldliness by way of discarding all morality that does not allow one to strive towards their own ...greatness isn't the right word, but it's the first one that comes ot mind... I hesitate to use the term arete, but that may fit as well.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Not really. The Ubermensch was largely interpreted to mean a figure who could create his own sets of morals and impose them on the 'degenerated' morals of other-worldliness (all the sets of morals that promise acheivement beyond human existence, i.e. Christianity) and those of this-worldliness that emulates the ideals of other-worldliness (statism). It was often depicted as amoral elitism, but since the Ubermensch sets down a sets of morals, you can't really say it's amoral.

The figure often cited as example is Napoleon Bonaparte, since his 'lack' of conventional morals allowed him to make Europe his bitch.

It has no 'evolutionnary' meaning, other than perhaps Nietzsche considered priests as thouroughly pathetic and inferior beings.

Wouldn't that make all conquerors and revolutionaries as 'supermen' then?

I think the Ubermensch runs a deli down the street, and the Hobbes I read is the one that comes with Calvin.

azazel the cat wrote:I've always read Zarathustra and the concept of the Ubermensch as something that syncs very well with Tsunetomo Yamamoto's Hagakure in that both strive to allow man to rise above the yoke of otherworldliness by way of discarding all morality that does not allow one to strive towards their own ...greatness isn't the right word, but it's the first one that comes ot mind... I hesitate to use the term arete, but that may fit as well.

Arete is perfectly correct, as long as it doesn't have any ''metaphysical'' meaning to it.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:I've always read Zarathustra and the concept of the Ubermensch as something that syncs very well with Tsunetomo Yamamoto's Hagakure in that both strive to allow man to rise above the yoke of otherworldliness by way of discarding all morality that does not allow one to strive towards their own ...greatness isn't the right word, but it's the first one that comes ot mind... I hesitate to use the term arete, but that may fit as well.

Arete is perfectly correct, as long as it doesn't have any ''metaphysical'' meaning to it.

Isn't the Ubermensch supposed to rise above the limits of society? Isn't that the whole point? To keep seeking to find and break your existing limits, and then the new ones, and then the new ones, and so on? In contrast to the Last Man, who is content with his life, limits, and society?

rubiksnoob wrote:I think the Ubermensch runs a deli down the street, and the Hobbes I read is the one that comes with Calvin.

That's quite enough. Thomas Hobbes and John Calvin are what the two characters are based on, after all. And the author got them right.

I'll be honest I didn't bother to read how this thread got from slavery to Nietzsche

Tadashi wrote:
Wouldn't that make all conquerors and revolutionaries as 'supermen' then?

Not quite, but it's pretty well implied in all his litterature that Nietzsche had a soft spot for conquerors. He portrayed the conqueror archetype through racial terms, 'the blond beast' (a.k.a the Aryan), who'se happiness and simple affirmation of himself lead to naturally be the 'noble' in his culture. Because pretty much everything he did was a joyous affirmation of his natural strenght, the blond beast ended up warring, and leading his people.

The 'Jew', or the 'slave', was it's opposite archetype, someone who would rule by laws, by tradition, and who would spend his life groveling at the beast's feet all the while resenting himself for being miserable. Christianity was the 'masterplan' of the slave, a way to inverse roles by making everyone resent there existence and strive for the existence that came after this one.

Nietzsche diagnosed that the masterplan had pretty much worked, although it was in great danger of failing because of the rise of empiricism. He hated Christianity with a fervour, so he certainly would've picked the 'blond beast' over the slave as a leader. But he admitted that between the two, the slave was much more interesting, much more cunning, and had completely beat the beast's for the last 2000 years. He didn't want the Ubermensch to be simply the Aryan, in the more common, german meaning, but he wished that the european man had more 'aryan' blood his veins, so to speak. (the culture in which he was brought up was utterly depressing)

The Ubermensch was the one who would go beyond that dichotomy. An intelligent, interesting man who could slaughter an entire town and come out laughing and joyfull (paraphrasing here, I remember that passage), and who could sets his morals according to his needs, without coming out as a pathetic, self-serving being.

Basically, Rambo-Jesus.
You see why I think it's a bit childish? It's pretty much a complete paradox, and doesn't really fix the moral problems created by 'the masterplan'.

Kovnik Obama wrote:
You see why I think it's a bit childish? It's pretty much a complete paradox, and doesn't really fix the moral problems created by 'the masterplan'.

If I remember Philosophy class right, the superman is supposed to be a paradox, because while he seeks to break his limits and surpass them, and then find his new limits and surpass them as well, and so, he must also accept that history is an endless repetition of events: joy, sadness, pain, pleasure, victory, defeat, etc., he cannot escape them. Ironically, that is what makes him superior - despite knowing his struggle is futile, the superman still strives to be better, as opposed to the Last Man who is content with his mundane existence.

Tadashi wrote:I've known the man since I was a kid...seeing him broken like that...its not that I hate women, I just can't bring myself to open up to the point I'd entrust my future to one unless I can be sure of her loyalty (sorry, but I can't find a better word) to me personally.

You act like that somehow redeems your mistrust and justifies it.

It's still misogyny, and an unhealthy view on life-- something that you will need to overcome for your own sake.

But it's much more fun to be a tragic figure!
Well, this thread has made me decide I want to go and read about some Ubermensch.

Da Boss wrote:But it's much more fun to be a tragic figure!
Well, this thread has made me decide I want to go and read about some Ubermensch.

Try The Birth of Tragedy, Beyond Good and Evil, and Thus Spoke Zarathustra. BTW, be prepared for major headaches, just in case.

Melissia wrote:
It's still misogyny, and an unhealthy view on life-- something that you will need to overcome for your own sake.

If you mean I won't have a family of my own, I've already accepted that possible (and very likely) future.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

You were born, raised and live in a country which still adores it's last dictator, a man who went down in the annals of history as the men who stole the most money from a State. It's sad to say, but the Philippino culture needs to change. The prevalant attitude amongst the many (if not all) philippinos I've met was that if you could screw over somebody and get away with it, you deserved praises. Not a good start for democracy.

Regardless of the cost, Marcos has done more for the country than any elected official has...ends justify the means: in other words - politics.

No, I meant that it is psychologically unhealthy to actively distrust half of the human population for such an arbitrary and rather stupid reason.

Tadashi wrote:Ironically, that is what makes him superior - despite knowing his struggle is futile, the superman still strives to be better, as opposed to the Last Man who is content with his mundane existence.

Futility is not at all related to the concept of Übermensch. In fact, futility is essentially the precursor to the existence of the Last Man.

Melissia wrote:No, I meant that it is psychologically unhealthy to actively distrust half of the human population for such an arbitrary and rather stupid reason.

I don't distrust them to the point that I can't work or interact with them...I just don't trust them to be part of my personal life without a complete guarantee.

dogma wrote:

Tadashi wrote:Ironically, that is what makes him superior - despite knowing his struggle is futile, the superman still strives to be better, as opposed to the Last Man who is content with his mundane existence.

Futility is not at all related to the concept of Übermensch. In fact, futility is essentially the precursor to the existence of the Last Man.

I meant that despite the fact that history is an endless repetition of events (and therefore, seeming hopelessness), the Ubermensch continues his/her endless pursuit of perfection. The Last Man gives in to the futility, and accepts his/her place. The Ubermensch accepts the futility, but not his/her place, and continues to seek and break his/her limits regardless of the difficulty of doing so.

You expect me to think that somehow makes a difference.

I meant that despite the fact that history is an endless repetition of events

It's not.

Melissia wrote:You expect me to think that somehow makes a difference.

No, not really. But being alone isn't so bad...and besides, in the absence of certainty, caution is the wise man's preserve.

I meant that despite the fact that history is an endless repetition of events

It's not.

Yes it is. Nations rise and fall, people live and die, wars start and end, peace settles and is disrupted, the list goes on.

xole wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:I think the Ubermensch runs a deli down the street, and the Hobbes I read is the one that comes with Calvin.

That's quite enough. Thomas Hobbes and John Calvin are what the two characters are based on, after all. And the author got them right.

I'll be honest I didn't bother to read how this thread got from slavery to Nietzsche

I am aware, twas simply a jest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tadashi, if you feel women are too untrustworthy for personal relationships, perhaps you should consider pursuing a relationship with a man! We are making leaps and bounds in securing equal rights for same-sex couples here in the states (well, trips and shuffles really, but it's progress!) and the benefits are limitless! (unless you work for certain corporations or live in certain states.)

Tadashi wrote:

Melissia wrote:You expect me to think that somehow makes a difference.

No, not really. But being alone isn't so bad...and besides, in the absence of certainty, caution is the wise man's preserve.

I meant that despite the fact that history is an endless repetition of events

It's not.

Yes it is. Nations rise and fall, people live and die, wars start and end, peace settles and is disrupted, the list goes on.

That's pretty vague... to the point where it's really very silly.

rubiksnoob wrote:
Tadashi, if you feel women are too untrustworthy for personal relationships, perhaps you should consider pursuing a relationship with a man! We are making leaps and bounds in securing equal rights for same-sex couples here in the states (well, trips and shuffles really, but it's progress!) and the benefits are limitless! (unless you work for certain corporations or live in certain states.)

I'd sooner eat my grandfather's gun.

purplefood wrote:
That's pretty vague... to the point where it's really very silly.

As a general description, it works well enough.

Tadashi wrote:Yes it is. Nations rise and fall, people live and die, wars start and end, peace settles and is disrupted, the list goes on.

A pointless list of pseudo-philosophical claptrap.

Tell me then, at which point in history did we have the freaking internet? The human race has moved out of the cycle of history, forging our own history. There are a damned sight many things, and I'm not just talking about technology, that exist today that haven't existed before in human society.

Melissia wrote:

Tadashi wrote:Yes it is. Nations rise and fall, people live and die, wars start and end, peace settles and is disrupted, the list goes on.

A pointless list of pseudo-philosophical claptrap.

Tell me then, at which point in history did we have the freaking internet? The human race has moved out of the cycle of history, forging our own history. There are a damned sight many things, and I'm not just talking about technology, that exist today that haven't existed before in human society.

As I said, its a general description...if its specifics, history does not repeat, but if in general, events from the past will always happen in different forms and manners in the future.

War, disease, famine, and most importantly, Human nature is still there.

Tadashi wrote:As I said, its a general description

No it's not. Just because many things have both a beginning and an end does not mean that they are linked to eachother. It's a stupid philosophy.

(That's) What she said...

Melissia wrote:

Tadashi wrote:As I said, its a general description

No it's not. Just because many things have both a beginning and an end does not mean that they are linked to each other. It's a stupid philosophy.

Of course they are linked. Past events lead to the events of today and tomorrow, and because of Human nature, people will just keep repeating the mistakes of the past. No matter how far we advance, if Humans remain the same as they are, nothing will change. History will continue to repeat its terrible repetitions.

Tadashi wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Tadashi wrote:As I said, its a general description

No it's not. Just because many things have both a beginning and an end does not mean that they are linked to each other. It's a stupid philosophy.

Of course they are linked. Past events lead to the events of today and tomorrow, and because of Human nature, people will just keep repeating the mistakes of the past. No matter how far we advance, if Humans remain the same as they are, nothing will change. History will continue to repeat its terrible repetitions.

Probably not...
I mean we haven't reintroduced slavery or repealed women's rights.
Last time i checked England wasn't purging the Scottish culture or invading France.
The Nordic countries aren't pillaging the east English coast and no one has discovered electricity recently...

azazel the cat wrote:

Testify wrote:

LordofHats wrote:To be honest people have been reading Nietzsche for over a century and scholars still can't agree what the feth he was on about.

Have you ever tried to read Nietzsche? And people say Mein Kamf is bad...

I have... hence, the sig. And I really think that you should clarify your statement, because Nietzsche is often misunderstood to be associated with the Nazi party because of the mistranslations of Ubermensch.

I wasn't referring to its association with the nazi party, I was referring to it being nigh-on unreadable.

if Humans remain the same as they are

We haven't.

Humans have changed drastically over the course of history.

Tadashi wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Tadashi wrote:As I said, its a general description

No it's not. Just because many things have both a beginning and an end does not mean that they are linked to each other. It's a stupid philosophy.

Of course they are linked. Past events lead to the events of today and tomorrow, and because of Human nature, people will just keep repeating the mistakes of the past. No matter how far we advance, if Humans remain the same as they are, nothing will change. History will continue to repeat its terrible repetitions.

Look, I'm sorry if you majored in history.

Let's say a Twinkie represents the normal amount of phylosphical psycho-babble in the Dakka Dakka forums. Based on this thread, it would be a Twinkie... thirty-five feet long, weighing approximately six hundred pounds.