What does Neitzsche mean by "become yourself" or "be what/who you are""

What do anons here understand by Nietzsche's command or instructions to become Supermen? In what way is the Superman delimited by being not Weak, not Religous, Stronger and More Vital than others?

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    He means you have to start Being. Heidegger already solved this.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >He means you have to start Being.
      You've just rewritten what Ive started a thread about the explanation of in OP.
      >Heidegger already solved this
      How did Heidegger solve this?

      Do not bother replying again in this thread with namedrops which are out of context, off topic and question-begging

      When and how does Being start? What does it mean for Being to start, what is the Being that starts?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        You start Being, when you stop Becoming.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Heidegger, The beginning of Western Philosophy

      >The portrayal of the current situation, undertaken these days again and again and in the most varied forms, is not only intrinsically perverse but is also superfluous and has long been so. Already two lifetimes ago the current situation was determined by Nietzsche. Moreover, it could indeed have been determined only then and only by him.
      >[...]
      >Such a determination of the historical circumstances, with the depth and breadth of Nietzsche, is something that occurs only once and is based on a unique necessity; it is unrepeatable. The accomplishment of that work was paid for by the prodigious fate of a great man. Such a task cannot be carried out incidentally, as a parergon; it demands the entire inner and outer history of a man of Nietzsche’s rank.
      >[...]
      >The complete self-delusion in which contemporary humanity, as contemporary, gaily splashes about is perhaps testified most clearly in the fact that Nietzsche, despite—indeed because of—the endless literature about him, is still not understood. Only a few are starting today to surmise something of the task and duty to grasp, i.e., to make effective, Nietzsche’s fate as the basic happening of our most inward history. To be sure, that signifies something completely other than becoming “representatives” of Nietzsche’s philosophy. No real philosophy can have representatives, provided such philosophy is truly understood. The “representatives” are always the ones who understand nothing.
      >Until we place ourselves in position, out of the power of a future, i.e., in the power of the past, to let the present disappear, or, in brief, as long as we are not successful in this essential transformation of the essence of time, we will not come to know authentically what we mean in saying “we.”
      >It can now only be anticipated: we—not as persons of today but, instead, as succeeding predecessors of a concealed history.
      >We want to seek out the beginning of Western philosophy. A condition is our being able in general to do something with the beginning. That requires experiencing the proximity of the beginning. That in turn requires a reference to the possible proximity of the beginning in our Dasein. And for that, we must involve ourselves in ourselves, which means neither dissecting ourselves psychologically-analytically
      >nor telling amusing tales about the current situation.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        In what is the reference to the possible proximity of the beginning in our Dasein possible without dissecting ourselves ourselves psychologically-analytically nor telling amusing tales about the current situation.
        In what is the particular value of philosophy? In what is seeking of the beginning of Western philosophy. A condition is our being able in general to do something with the beginning, in what is the doing of the beginning?

        This is definitely a more valuable post than the first, thanks for contributing to the thread

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          I'm not the 2nd poster. Different guy. The wider section this comes from is pure gold, I love when Heidegger gets irritated by his contemporaries. See https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/472804509/ for the full stuff.

          How does this relate to the Eternal Return?

          Reading Ecce homosexual along:
          >How should I not be grateful to my whole life? – And so I tell myself my life.
          Don't listen to him when he says "Here there speaks no ‘prophet", he very much is one if you can filter from the meaning of the word everything he seeks to distance himself from: the "lie of the ideal", "the curse of reality", "promising [...] to improve manking", "faith", "religion"...

          He's very much conscious of his special destiny:
          >He who knows how to breathe the air of my writings knows that it is an air of the heights, a robust air. One has to be made for it, otherwise there is no small danger one will catch cold.

          He was "made for it". The whole destiny of philosophy is speaking through his mouth. Look again here where we can observe both the same distanciation from religious and moral attributes of prophets, and yet also a fully aware understanding of his own fate

          >Here there speaks no fanatic, here there is no ‘preaching’, here faith is not demanded: out of an infinite abundance of light and depth of happiness there falls drop after drop, word after word – a tender slowness of pace is the tempo of these discourses. Such things as this reach only the most select; it is an incomparable privilege to be a listener here; no one is free to have ears for Zarathustra…

          Keep in mind the full title of the book was: "Thus spoke Zarathustra, a book for all and none".
          Quoting again what I wrote above:
          >How should I not be grateful to my whole life? – And so I tell myself my life.
          To him and himself alone !

          I think it is in fact the same kind of phenomenon at play in the etymology of "to remain" but on the level of a man rather than a word:

          [...]

          crazy dickriding

          You belong to the nones. Believing otherwise is the dickriding.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >He means you have to start Being.
        You've just rewritten what Ive started a thread about the explanation of in OP.
        >Heidegger already solved this
        How did Heidegger solve this?

        Do not bother replying again in this thread with namedrops which are out of context, off topic and question-begging

        When and how does Being start? What does it mean for Being to start, what is the Being that starts?

        I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding about *what* Nietzsche was. Nietzsche was a fateful event in the history of philosophy, something that was set into mention when it began 2500 years ago. When Heidegger says

        >it demands the entire inner and outer history of a man of Nietzsche’s rank.

        reinterpret rank as frequency: the rarest, a unique, inevitable pivotal moment. When Nietzsche says "I'm not a man, I'm dynamite", what he says is not that he is better than eveybody else. He literally means, I'm an explosion that was structurally set to happen in the history of philosophy. This consciousness of his own role with regard to history is precisely what constitues him as historical event. Look at the full quote, it's explicit:

        >I know my fate. One day my name will be associated with the memory of something tremendous — a crisis without equal on earth, the most profound collision of conscience, a decision that was conjured up against everything that had been believed, demanded, hallowed so far. I am no man, I am dynamite.
        This is from Ecce Homo

        The book starts with:
        >Seeing that I must shortly approach mankind with the heaviest demand that has ever been made on it, it seems to me indispensable to say who I am. This ought really to be known already: for I have not neglected to ‘bear witness’ about myself.
        >[...]
        >Under these circumstances there exists a duty against which my habit, even more the pride of my instincts revolts, namely to say: Listen to me! for I am thus and thus. Do not, above all, confound me with what I am not!

        Nietzsche is a *historica phenomenon*, he's a prophet !

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          How does this relate to the Eternal Return?

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          crazy dickriding

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        He says nothing. Literally just ranting with vague praisings of Nietzsche. All of Heideggers philosophy is like this. Vagueties.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          He says nothing in so far as you persists in seeing in Nietzsche someone who dissects ourselves psychologically-analytically or tells amusing tales about the modern situation, how insightful these contributions may be.

          The second paragraph is pretty clear there is something that goes beyond this picture:

          >Such a determination of the historical circumstances [...] was paid for by the prodigious fate of a great man. [...]; it demands the entire inner and outer history of a man of Nietzsche’s rank.

          Analysis of these historical circumstances is the subject of almost all of Nietzsche's reflexions and we shouldn't understand in "historical circumstances" the mere accumulation of forces leading to a certain outcome at a given point in history. Nietzsche, mirroring Heidegger's focus on the *history* of metaphysics, is more interested in the historicity of history itself and how it reveals itself to itself via the process we call "history". This is exclusively the question Nietzsche is concerned with in Ecce Homo, and excluding the passages I have not quoted where he ponders on the more "circumstancial" circumstances behind his genius and which are immediately relevant to the "task" he was assigned for the particular period of history he lived in, we can see in the passages that I quoted that he was lucidly aware of the "prodigious fate" which had taken hold of him and that this revealing of one to itself was the central piece of the engine that allows one to reveal historicity to itself.

          >For assuming that the task, the vocation, the destiny of the task exceeds the average measure by a significant degree, there would be no greater danger than to catch sight of oneself with this task.

          This seems contradiction what I am attempting to convey, but observe this:

          >On this perfect day, when everything has become ripe and not only the grapes are growing brown, a ray of sunlight has fallen on to my life: I looked behind me, I looked before me, never have I seen so many and such good things together. Not in vain have I buried my forty-fourth year today, I was entitled to bury it – what there was of life in it is rescued, is immortal. The first book of the Revaluation of all Values, the Songs of Zarathustra, the Twilight of the Idols, my attempt to philosophize with a hammer – all of them gifts of this year, of its last quarter even! How should I not be grateful to my whole life? – And so I tell myself my life.

          And Ecce homosexual continues with:

          >WHY I AM SO WISE
          >1
          >The fortunateness of my existence, its uniqueness perhaps, lies in its fatality: to express it in the form of a riddle, as my father I have already died, as my mother I still live and grow old.

          I repeat:
          >The fortunateness of my life [...] lies in its fatality.

          I am going to tell you what's at the heart of this tautology that binds "fortune" to "fate": Nietzsche's fate was to realize he had a fate.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Heidegger already solved this.
      You mean Nietzsche already did.

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I don't even know how to answer this. It's like rocking a degree in nuclear engineering and having someone ask you "so how does the atom feel when you split it?"
    Shit Black person, do you even know what you're asking? Just read his fricking writings before asking something silly.
    But if you must have an answer, Nietsczhe viewed the human spirit as a very real benefit to humanity while seeing many things in our culture like religion and morality to be crutches used by weaker men that are wholly incapable of thinking of these things on their own. So, in his beliefs, it was imperative to kick out these crutches that support us and be "free".

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >It's like rocking a degree in nuclear engineering and having someone ask you "so how does the atom feel when you split it?"
      So becoming what you are in your opinion resides in a feeling?
      >Shit Black person, do you even know what you're asking? Just read his fricking writings before asking something silly.
      I think the proper context is important many people think different things especially when it comes to ideas about finding ones "True Self" or whatever similar concept there is. Nietzsche can write in an almost paradoxical way where he affirms life as ultimate naturalistically, but then again affirms spirit as the superior life so I think an investigation of the matter through this thread would be valuable
      >while seeing many things in our culture like religion and morality to be crutches used by weaker men that are wholly incapable of thinking of these things on their own. So, in his beliefs, it was imperative to kick out these crutches that support us and be "free".
      Doesnt that imply that the Superman is delimited by being some sort of "strong man" opposed to all the things mentioned in what sense is the man strong, outwardly, inwardly, both? In what way is the spirit of benefit does it inspire culture and art what relationship does it have with the world

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    "Become who you are". Nietzsche himself points out in TSZ that the path presented is Zarathustra's path and that we have to forge our own.

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >"become yourself" or "be what/who you are"
    Most of his aphorisms read like inspirationals quotes.

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    your question has a few flaws. namely, you shouldn't just assume that Nietzsche is always talking about the overhuman in aphorisms where he doesn't actually mention that concept. let's forget about the overhuman for now and just think about the "become who you are" command in the context of the text from which it comes, The Gay Science.

    Nietzsche is often very critical of the notion of the subject; in TGS in particular he appears to deny the existence of any fixed or identifiable substance, seeing instead a world of "continuum" and "flux" (112). when Nietzsche says that we must "create" ourselves in aphorism 335 then, he is speaking literally; there is no self until we create it, giving ourselves "laws" to follow and thereby create a consistent pattern of behavior.

    I beleive this should be read in light of aphorism 290:
    >One thing is needful-- to "give style" to one's character
    >it is practiced by those who survey all the strengths and weaknesses of their nature and then fit them into an artistic plan
    >in the end, when the work is finished, it becomes evident how the constraint of a single taste governed and formed everything large and small

    to give style is to turn one's nature into an artistic object, thereby to reveal the presence of "a single taste"; we are meant to become self-fashioners who create subjects out of nature as a medium. it doesn't matter for Nietzsche here whether that taste is "good or bad."

    this is my interpretation of "become who you are" anyways; there are certainly others. but I do not beleive that it is to do with the overhuman at all, but rather a process of self fashioning that Nietzsche believes we must undertake in order to actually exist as a "self" in the first place

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Thanks for your contribution
      >in TGS in particular he appears to deny the existence of any fixed or identifiable substance, seeing instead a world of "continuum" and "flux" (112). when Nietzsche says that we must "create" ourselves in aphorism 335 then, he is speaking literally; there is no self until we create it, giving ourselves "laws" to follow and thereby create a consistent pattern of behavior.
      As I have followed this is definitely from my groping of the matter not separable from Nietzsche's notion of the Eternal Return, by "flux" and "continuum" is meant Becoming however by sealing Being by Becoming we arrive back at the notion of the Eternal Return as a test of Being of sorts by Becoming

      This recalls from his Will to Power
      >For everything to return is the closest approximation of a world of becoming to a world of being.
      >To impose the character of being upon becoming is the supreme test of power.
      Power is inseparable in my view from the idea of the Superman, so the character of Being referred to would not be in my mind something completely inserted on my mind.

      The quotes you have excerpted
      >One thing is needful-- to "give style" to one's character
      >it is practiced by those who survey all the strengths and weaknesses of their nature and then fit them into an artistic plan
      >in the end, when the work is finished, it becomes evident how the constraint of a single taste governed and formed everything large and small
      It is interesting that this single taste is referred to as a constraint, as if it were to have a limitative character whilst simultaneously underlying and governing all great or small
      >it doesn't matter for Nietzsche here whether that taste is "good or bad."
      Can't we also relate this to the Overman who is "beyond good and evil"
      >but rather a process of self fashioning that Nietzsche believes we must undertake in order to actually exist as a "self" in the first place
      I guess what would follow from that is asking how does this "self-fashioning" process really occur, by what is it begun? We can't seperate it exactly from ourselves (in the first person) in the first place?

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    just b urself

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *