Explain to me how the concept of the ubermensch is not merely another deity conceived by Nietzsche for man to worship?
 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
|
Explain to me how the concept of the ubermensch is not merely another deity conceived by Nietzsche for man to worship?
>deity
>for man to worship
>Nietzsche
yes
Be nice, clearly OP's brain isn't fully developed.
No. Deities are constructs. We Ubermesh are human examples of high mental acuity, physical prowess, sensitivity and artistic talent all combined into one being. A deity is existential and we Ubermesh are the result of sexually selecting superior traits.
>We Ubermesh
Bait
Don't know. Don't care. I stopped caring about the reamblings of this lunatic when I realized just how much of his allegations against Christians were a strawman.
Leave behind everything you think you know about Nietzsche and start with the greeks.
it's just an incel power fantasy that will never exist for any Nietzschegays except within their imagination.
>fat female undermesh hands typed this
you still havent refuted him, weird huh
Spengler convinced me that Schopenhauer to Nietzsche is equivalent to Buddhism or Stoicism. It is a de-souled metaphysic that seeks to overcome nihilism. So the ubermensch would be more like someone who has reached enlightenment or perfect stoicism than a deity.
Ubermensch is a step in evolution, something to pave the way to. Not a great man of today or any time soon.
The overman is a real phenomenon in the geneticultural evolution of humanity, not just an ideal. He's the intersection between the most complex set of genes and most refined set of cultural values and you haven't been paying attention to the world around you if you think this is an impossible notion.
> "a deeply materialistic view of culture and history, that's what Moderns needs to fix themselves!"
The overman doesn't care about "fixing moderns" and will instead make their lives a living hell. Christians think of him as nothing less than the embodiment of Satan.
A) Weak ass rethoric, mate.
B) Who the frick cares about "christians"? Proddies have never been right about anything.
C) Other people don't think about your made up BAP stand-in imaginary friend and don't concerns themselves with it.
D) kys.
>Other people don't think
I'm aware. Do you have an actual point to make?
>Do you have an actual point to make?
Yes, that reading a form of existentialism that couldn't possibly be addressed to anyone else than moronic homosexuals kinda makes you a moronic homosexual.
>I haven't read the book so its witchy powers have no hold on me
Never change IQfy
You may not realize it but you just btfo nietzsche’s entire oeuvre
The overman has no cultural values. He is planned or engineered man if nothing but hyper-efficiency and evil. This is why what Nietzsche wrote was moronic.
>The overman has no cultural values
He does, but they are his. He creates those values.
You're not making any sense. Frick off.
The obvious result of that is no values at all. It is just sheer power, raw efficiency. Those are his only values. That is not culture.
Power has influence and that influence creates culture. Further, the overman's values are part of a development as much as they are his own creation. He has to go through his camel phase, in other words.
Power begets power and that’s all. We have no reason at all to think power can create culture. In fact, the world as power since Nietzsche has been a complete and unmitigated disaster for culture everywhere. Nietzsche’s overman ends up looking more like a culture less android than a Dante or Michelangelo. This conception of culture created by a ruthless and atheistic generic aristocracy is complete nonsense.
Define culture for me.
You definite since you’re only asking to take some pedantic issue with what I say and insist on a hyper-nuanced definition of culture I’m sure. Let’s just cut to the chase.
I actually just wanted clarification since your post makes no sense to me, but if you want to drop the conversation, go for it.
Why play games? Just set up the particular definitions you wanted set for culture and get on with it. Just spit it out already.
That the overman is someone who does or can create culture.
>Why play games?
I'm not, but you are. The way you use the word culture is confusing. Why would a creator of values not also create culture?
Why would you ask what my definition of culture is unless you had a particular definition of your own? Do you really expect me to think you didn’t know what I meant by the word “culture”? Even suggesting that my use of the word culture is confusing to you implies you have a conception of your own.
And I’ve already explained to you that Nietzsche was wrong that the overman as he posits it can be a creator of values. His singular value is power. He is otherwise valueless.
>Why would you ask what my definition of culture is unless you had a particular definition of your own?
Because what you write doesn't make sense, you fricking autist. Are you really having this much trouble with a simple request for clarification?
>His singular value is power. He is otherwise valueless.
All values stem from power, so this is moronic nonsense.
Then be specific and say what doesn’t make sense. Don’t play pedantic gotcha games over definitions. Speak plainly ffs.
Power displaces values. It is simply logical that if power is a value then all other values are not created from it but subordinated to it. Other values could rub up against sheer power. This is a contradiction. It doesn’t make any sense to say a being of power or a pursuit of power creates values. It obviously doesn’t. This is true especially for the pursuit of power, rather than power as such, and Nietzsche’s overman is indeed something to aim for, not something which is.
>Then be specific and say what doesn’t make sense.
None of what you wrote made sense and right now it seems related to your understanding of culture.
>Speak plainly ffs.
I asked for you to define a word you used. How much plainer do I need to be?
>It is simply logical that if power is a value then all other values are not created from it but subordinated to it.
Power is not a value. Values stem from power. You are a certain quantum of power interacting with other quanta of power, these interactions resulting in differentiated perspectives, perspectives being value-generators.
>This is true especially for the pursuit of power, rather than power as such, and Nietzsche’s overman is indeed something to aim for, not something which is.
Will to power is not "pursuit of power." You haven't done the reading.
The overman is something for humanity to aim at. My argument is that this thing which is being aimed at is necessarily a pursuit of power, pursuit of a being that is powerful, which means that all values are only valuable in so far as they beget, or at least do not impede, power. So what good are values when you run the risk that they can rub up against power? If power is the goal, values would necessarily be dissolved so as not to rub up against power. So if the overman is a pursuit of power, and the pursuit of power dissolves values, you are just banking on this over-man willing new creative values once power is achieved, but not only would both the overman and power be an endless pursuit, but for what possible reason would a being of power create new values? Why? There is no logical reason at all. The overman is an endless striving for power while all other values are stripped away, and there is no conceivable reason to create new values at all for an overman. It doesn’t make any sense.
This is a very easy argument to follow, if you’re not pedantic and disingenuous regarding particular definitions of culture that don’t really matter.
>If power is the goal, values would necessarily be dissolved
Yes, and?
"In fact, all the tables of value, all the “you should’s” which history or ethnological research knows about, need, first and foremost, illumination and interpretation from physiology, in any case even before psychology. All of them similarly await a critique from the point of view of medical science. The question “What is this or that table of values and ‘morality’ *worth*?” will be set under the different perspectives. For we cannot analyze the question “Value *for what*?” too finely."
>not only would both the overman and power be an endless pursuit, but for what possible reason would a being of power create new values? Why?
Physiology, cretin.
>my whole argument is that this striving towards the ubermensch doesn’t mean so much a re-evaluation of values as much as it means the total destruction of them, and it cannot create new ones
You've been replied, that you view the problem from a normative angle, while it is the physical processes that upstart all your "ought to" ideals.
"Nothing is more distasteful to true philosophers than man when he begins to wish.... If they see man only at his deeds; if they see this bravest, craftiest and most enduring of animals even inextricably entangled in disaster, how admirable he then appears to them! They even encourage him.... But true philosophers despise the man who wishes, as also the “desirable” man—and all the desiderata and ideals of man in general. If a philosopher could be a nihilist, he would be one; for he finds only nonentity behind all human ideals. Or, not even nonentity, but vileness, absurdity, sickness, cowardice, fatigue and all sorts of dregs from out the quaffed goblets of his life.... How is it that man, who as a reality is so estimable, ceases from deserving respect the moment he begins to desire? Must he pay for being so perfect as a reality? <...> That which justifies man is his reality,—it will justify him to all eternity. How much more valuable is a real man than any other man who is merely the phantom of desires, of dreams of stinks and of lies?—than any kind of ideal man? ... And the ideal man, alone, is what the philosopher cannot abide."
Why? For the overman, physiology is subordinate to power. It’s only useful in so far as it propagates power. And moreover, physiology is not culture. It is not even creative, nor is it a new value.
The last citation is also not an argument, not a justification of an argument. In fact you just went and affirmed that in right, that the overman necessarily destroys and erases values in the previous reply.
Nietzsche enjoyers seemingly cannot muster up a single argument or justification without resorting blindly to citations, which again, are neither arguments necessarily nor justifications. If I give all the attributes of a square and call it a circle, that it is neither an argument nor a justification.
>Why? For the overman, physiology is subordinate to power.
And power is like buddhistic "void", it is not a thing of substance and more like a designation of what it is not.
>It’s only useful in so far as it propagates power.
Which correlates with darwinistic notions of evolution
Or are you able to provide some explanations for natural selection process that are not subordinate to "survival of the fittest"?
>The last citation is also not an argument
The last citation literally tells you that your perception is biomechanical. You'll evaluate, because you cannot do otherwise.
>the overman necessarily destroys and erases values
And evolution necessarily makes species go extinct. Yes, and?
"And he who hath to be a creator in good and evil— verily, he hath first to be a destroyer, and break values in pieces.
Thus doth the greatest evil pertain to the greatest good: that, however, is the creating good.—"
Your conception of the will to power isn't Nietzsche's. His is a bottom-up process, not a top-down one like you're suggesting. The will to power operates at the so-called level of what psychoanalysis refers to as the unconscious mind, as I previously hinted at when I mentioned how perspectives emerge from power and how values emerge from perspectives. Power begets values, not the other way around, in other words—at least if we are talking about Nietzsche's idea of the will to power and not someone else's shoddy version of it.
We are all "beings of power." It's not just the overman who is this. The overman is simply the pinnacle of power within our species, the source of his power stemming from having the greatest quantity of drives under the greatest degree of control so far attained within himself. He is biologically and psychologically superior to the rest of the species and therefore described by Zarathustra as being as different from humans as apes are to humans. This means that we all create values, including the overman, but the overman's values are the greatest because he is the most powerful.
But what I’m arguing is that the overman is necessarily an aiming at power for power’s same. Everything is subordinated to the striving for power, and that logical cannot create new values.
Will to power creates values because it creates perspectives, which create values.
No, it doesn’t. It subordinated everything to the pursuit of power. Power has no use for values because values can rub up against power.
If power were truly “like a Buddhistic void” then Nietzsche would have just been a Buddhist, but I know what you mean. It is somewhat analogous to Buddhism and I think both are nihilistic nonsense. The citation is just an allegation, not an argument not a justification.
So you admit that the overman, like Darwinian evolution, is an essentially valueless doctrine and thus cannot create culture? Good, we are in agreement then.
People that cannot make arguments of their own without resorting to a labyrinth of citations have nothing to say.
>the overman, like Darwinian evolution, is an essentially valueless doctrine
Just because you cannot define evolution non-tautologically, it doesn't undermine it's potency. If there were none, there wouldn't be any you, nor any values to begin with.
You’re right, there wouldn’t be but that’s why I don’t accept Darwinism lol.
>It subordinated everything to the pursuit of power.
That's not what will to power is. Will to power is more like what every other will distills down to. It's not a will in itself so much as a descriptor for every will. The subject for Nietzsche is a multiplicity of wills which are all competing with one another to dominate the others. Will to power is the distillation of all the other wills. All of them are will to power.
>for what possible reason would a being of power create new values? Why?
For what possible reason do you perceive, say, evolutionary adaptations in goals-speak? Despite knowing that evolution is no intelligent designer and thus cannot have goals? Why?
"However, the fact that generally the ascetic ideal has meant so much to human beings is an expression of the basic fact of the human will, its horror vacui [horror of a vacuum]. *It requires a goal*—and it prefers to will *nothingness* than *not* to will.—Do you understand me?... Have you understood me?... “Not in the slightest, my dear sir!”—so, let’s start from the beginning."
>We have no reason at all to think power can create culture.
"Dignity and Timidity.—Ceremonies, official robes and court dresses, grave countenances, solemn aspects, the slow pace, involved speech—everything, in short, known as dignity—are all pretences adopted by those who are timid at heart: they wish to make themselves feared (themselves or the things they represent). The fearless (i.e. originally those who naturally inspire others with awe) have no need of dignity and ceremonies: they bring into repute—or, still more, into ill-repute—honesty and straightforward words and bearing, as characteristics of their self-confident awefulness."
"Morals are constantly undergoing changes and transformations, occasioned by successful crimes. (To these, for example, belong all innovations in moral judgments.)"
>hyper-efficiency
"As yet hath his knowledge not learned to smile, and to be without jealousy; as yet hath his gushing passion not become calm in beauty.
Verily, not in satiety shall his longing cease and disappear, but in beauty! Gracefulness belongeth to the munificence of the magnanimous.
His arm across his head: thus should the hero repose; thus should he also surmount his repose.
But precisely to the hero is beauty the hardest thing of all. Unattainable is beauty by all ardent wills.
A little more, a little less: precisely this is much here, it is the most here.
To stand with relaxed muscles and with unharnessed will: that is the hardest for all of you, ye sublime ones!
When power becometh gracious and descendeth into the visible—I call such condescension, beauty.
And from no one do I want beauty so much as from thee, thou powerful one: let thy goodness be thy last self-conquest.
All evil do I accredit to thee: therefore do I desire of thee the good."
>and evil
"And verily, ye good and just! In you there is much to be laughed at, and especially your fear of what hath hitherto been called “the devil!”
So alien are ye in your souls to what is great, that to you the Superman would be frightful in his goodness!
And ye wise and knowing ones, ye would flee from the solar-glow of the wisdom in which the Superman joyfully batheth his nakedness!
Ye highest men who have come within my ken! this is my doubt of you, and my secret laughter: I suspect ye would call my Superman—a devil!"
Quotes don’t refute the notion that he was wrong.
Quotes refute the notion that the Nietzschean concept of ubermensch has anything to do with "hyper-efficiency".
Quotes problematize your label of "evil", displaying two vastly different processes that you awkwardly try to covertly mesh together and make them pass as one.
No, they don’t. If Nietzsche said the sky is green, that doesn’t mean the sky is green. Were you to quote his saying the sky is green, wouldn’t refute me saying Nietzsche was wrong.
>No, they don’t.
Yes, they do, you fricking autist.
>If Nietzsche said the sky is green, that doesn’t mean the sky is green.
If you said, that Nietzsche said that the sky is green, that doesn’t mean that Nietzsche said the sky is green.
Especially, when you've been b***h-slapped with a direct quote saying exactly the opposite.
> the being he presents is necessarily a being of efficiency and power at the expense of values
> nuh uh look here he says that the being he’s not
> no, I know that but it logically follows from what he’s presenting that this is wrong
> nuh uh look here is is saying the being is not
This is your brain on the overman. Nietzsche says X, so X never mind how X is justified. Utterly moronic.
> the shape has 4 corners, 4 lines, and is 2 dimensional, it’s a triangle
> the implication is clearly that it’s not a triangle but a square
> nuh uh he says right there it’s a triangle I even quoted it
> this is overman argumentation
>the being he presents is necessarily a being of efficiency
>no, look, the definition he provides, demands it necessarily not to be one efficient at the cost of aesthetics. If it were, Nietzsche wouldn't acknowledge it as an "ubermensch" then.
>[incomprehensible autistic screeching]!!!! I know better how to define an ubermensch than Nietzsche!111
You are actually an idiot. We all know what Nietzsche said. My argument is that what he said makes no sense. If you can’t even comprehend that you are wasting time.
>My argument is that what he said makes no sense.
Your argument is to label some other thing an "ubermensch", and attack a strawman.
>We all know what Nietzsche said.
That
an ubermensch is an impossible abstraction, that (like a god) can never exist in the flesh.
Yet striving for that impossibility upkeeps the momentum of value reevaluation, and *that* is what is the source of health. As long as you don't actively cognize it, and achieve it as a side-effect of striving to become an ubermensch.
"Inventors of figures and phantoms shall they be in their hostilities; and with those figures and phantoms shall they yet fight with each other the supreme fight!
Good and evil, and rich and poor, and high and low, and all names of values: weapons shall they be, and sounding signs, that life must again and again surpass itself!
Aloft will it build itself with columns and stairs—life itself: into remote distances would it gaze, and out towards blissful beauties—therefore doth it require elevation!
And because it requireth elevation, therefore doth it require steps, and variance of steps and climbers! To rise striveth life, and in rising to surpass itself."
>You are actually an idiot.
No, you.
Right, and my whole argument is that this striving towards the ubermensch doesn’t mean so much a re-evaluation of values as much as it means the total destruction of them, and it cannot create new ones. That Nietzsche said otherwise, does not justify what he said. If you cannot comprehend this, you are hopeless.
Wrong about what?
the atheists cant know right from wrong, so their mental gymnastics about the uberman is flawed. The uberman is actually the last man: the uberman despises so much reality after seeing nihilism, that out of resentment for reality, the uberman CHOOSES to sink further in his delusion by building a narrative where he is not the last man, but actually the opposite, ie the uberman who creates his own values, ie cooming by living in own brain farts until he dies.
>not merely another deity conceived by Nietzsche for man to worship
It's the first possible deity in Nietzsche. His complaints about other gods are purely they are delusions about the first purpose of any of them: transcendence.
"Ah, there are so many things betwixt heaven and earth of which only the poets have dreamed!
And especially above the heavens: for all Gods are poetsymbolisations, poet-sophistications!
Verily, ever are we drawn aloft—that is, to the realm of the clouds: on these do we set our gaudy puppets, and then call them Gods and Supermen:—
Are not they light enough for those chairs!—all these Gods and Supermen?—
Ah, how I am weary of all the inadequate that is insisted on as actual! Ah, how I am weary of the poets!"
The Ubermensch is the top and bottom of the I, regular people can only be one part (usually the bottom unless they are narcissistic). Creating your own values means that you're an absolutely independent thinker, it does not necessarily mean that you come up with values are super bizarrely unique that make you seem completely different from everyone.
>He [Nietzsche] demolished so many idols only to replace them with others: a false iconoclast, with adolescent aspects and a certain virginity, a certain innocence inherent in his solitary’s career. He observed men only from a distance. Had he come closer, he could have neither conceived nor promulgated the superman, that preposterous, laughable, even grotesque chimera, a crotchet which could occur only to a mind without time to age, to know the long serene disgust of detachment.
Emil Cioran on Nietzsche
>>He [Nietzsche] demolished so many idols only to replace them with others
Read his works, you stupid frogposter.
Because it isn't a deity, and it isn't worshipped.
>Explain to me how the concept of the ubermensch is not merely another deity conceived by Nietzsche for man to worship?
Did you even bothered to read his work.