promethean75 wrote:I find it tends to be much more accurate to couch such trends in scientific theory than to accuse sickness and corruption. Are pair-bonding, pseudo-kinship cooperative strategies necessarily a degeneration? Nietzsche would class such a thing as "décadence" and the emergence of "the Last Man" or Untermensch.
but he'd also admit that a degree of baseness and mediocrity is necessary to sustain a civilization, so such instructions are not meant to be prescriptive for everyone. had he the scientific knowledge we now have in modern evolutionary biology, he'd probably not object to this relatively new evolutionarily stable strategy as being an indication of degeneracy. and there again, he'd not judge one kind of morality by the standards of the other. so the 'last man' contra 'ubermench' debate should be about dividing those who recognize and accept what is necessary in evolutionary process, and those who simply are that evolutionary process (material to be worked on).
today, the classification of the 'last man' is reversed; those perennial conservatives and romantic sentimentalists who are afraid to allow evolution to take risks, to experiment, to move freely and unhindered by history. in short, those who hold on to 'old ideals'... these are the last men. formerly, though, these types were the ubermenschen; once upon a time the great risk and experiment was to attempt to establish a foundation for conservative values among a wanton and disorganized society (e.g., the origination of the monogamous family unit for the purposes of passing on wealth through inheritance [engels]). another example... 20th century german ideology... well fascism in general, this was the last great expression of the ubermensch. and with this failed attempt also died any notion that would justify the authority and privilege of a ruling class over the masses. in other words, there are no more noble and spiritually evolved ubermenschen above and beyond the majority that act to give society direction, goals and substance... something that was possible only while countries were economically and culturally isolated (the 20th century pre-globalism stage).
only the bourgeois exist now, a gross embarrassment to the concept of the ubermensch. in turn, the concept of the last man has lost its certainty and become just as obscure. today, most who'd like to think of themselves as ubermensch are in fact just rogue last men, so to speak, who believe they stand above the mediocre simply because of their purposeful disassociation with them.
to be the ubermensch today would require someone to be so radical, so unique, of such an exceptional nature as to not possibly be mistaken as neither a version of all the former failed attempts at it, or its current farcical incarnation as the bourgeois, that it would almost be incommunicable and unidentifiable by ordinary eyes. only the ubermensch can know the ubermensch... and when talking of the ubermensch, speak only to the ubermensch.
yes, may i speak to the ubermensch, please? hello?
fuck i musta dialed the wrong number.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=195039#p2732819
The above post by promethean75 (taken from the thread "Erasing The Perceived Difference Of Identity" - viewtopic.php?f=3&t=195039 ) makes Me wonder who the best, most prime, elite, and exalted example of an individual from historic achievement we can take to personify the Ubermensch ideal set out in Nietzsche's Zarathustra.
Is he (or she) indomitable, valiant, holy, and wise? Besides those qualities, what are other virtues that we should be looking for in such a man set apart from all the rest in his council, understanding, heart, and soul?
