How to become Ubermensch?

Stirner and Nietzsche, S&N were similar, in that they both weren’t afraid of moral gods, ghosts or ectoplasm, yet they didn’t do away with sociability, creativity for its own sake, or altruism altogether, only the contrived kind, instead they placed sociability, creativity and altruism in the realm of the subjective, of perception and sentiment, like David Hume did.

Where they differed is in what sort of perceptions and sentiments they had.
S’s were more egalitarian, he believed many, most or all at some point in the future could liberate themselves from belief in gods and objective morality, whereas N’s were more elitist, he believed only the elite could.
S didn’t divide the world into two camps, the uber and the unter, N did.
Both S and N spoke of unions of egoists in their own way, but S was open to all sorts of nonbinding unions, whereas Nietzsche was only interested in the uber uniting to further their interests, and rule the unter.

So two people can do away with moral monsters, boogeymen, but still think and feel very differently about the world and the people who inhabit it.
It’d be interesting to compile all the great ethical subjectivists, from about Hume onward, to see how their ethical subjectivism manifested differently.

Did he not rather say the higher man would employ the “educated masses” (cosmopolitans middle class) to shape the base of a pyramid?
This distance is not a hermit-like distance, even though still a hygiene, but definitely not a complete separation.

That is to say, the normal humans would remain unaware of the existence of the Uebermensch.

Dudes can we please spell it right it is jarring.

Ue is U-umlaut.

I think youre not taking this from N directly.
What he always asks about a taste, which separates types of people. Not morals.

Morals are simply bad taste.

I don’t see N in this.
Pls quote.

N was no fan of Darwin though, he writes contemptuously of him.

Not afraid, but N completely rejected morality and moral gods.

Nietzsche was against all morality, he never advocated Master Morality. He just said it existed.

All morality is anti-Nietzschean.

No more important point in N than that men, up to and at least 100 years beyond him, had not been great enough.
Not even Napoleon had his respect, because of the cause he led.

The concept of Uebermensch, I don’t know what’s so difficult to understand about this. (lol yeah of course I do but it’s mean) is the conceptualization of mankind as being by definition insufficient to please his tastes.

All this about already existing Uebermenschen is from other sources than Nietzsche.

Am I the only one who understands the concept of sourcing, quoting, referring - am I the only one who is not content to just blindly imagine things?

Perhaps Im the only one who has read Nietzsche to any serious extent.

How elitist of me.

But really. Only the elite of this planet can endure reading Nietzsche. That’s the whole point. His writing is a selecting mechanism.

He exudes this whole taste for rank so very utterly that one must have quite a strong stomach.

In this sense, America as being a mechanism for rank-creating, did, I think, have his respect.

Naturally he wasn’t so silly as to believe men have intrinsic rights, he wasn’t as silly as to disregard reality of how men interact, nor did he value men in particular as more ontologically significant than animals, so he did not value the base narrative of the USA, but he must have valued the massiveness of its power machinations.

And since he considered overcoming and self-overcoming as a crucial aspect of noble nature, he would definitely have had some pleasure in the path to power of the African gene pool. He certainly wasn’t racist.

What he loathed about the US type base narrative is the whining demands that all men are given rights without any of their own efforts.
Still, since he valued the Noble Lie, he would have respected the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as - noble lies. Meaning statements which serve a deeper purpose than to convey some moral truth.

The difference between truth and reality.

I know a little about Nietzsche but I seriously need to read up on him to gain a greater understanding of him
I understand how he thought one can become better through suffering because it is suffering that defines us
I would not be put off by him at all because my sense of detachment does not allow for emotional judgements
I am currently reading The Gulag Archipelago which in terms of enduring extreme suffering is as Nietzschean as it is possible to be
The Nazis took his idea of Superman and completed distorted it because it was about self improvement not creating the master race

You certainly don’t sound as misguided as most.

I have a biography of his which I never finished because the writing was so dry and academic but I will give it another go
I have Zarathustra but need to get Will To Power and maybe Ecce Homo and perhaps a really good biography of him too

Am going through a serious book binge at the moment and one name on that list is Nietzsche
Also Marx / Popper / Locke / Hume / Kant / Crowley / Aurelius / Socrates / Aristotle / Rand

So much to read and so little time to read it but one does what one can
Knowledge is to the mind what exercise is to the body so read on I say

Solid programme - N comes into his own among his peers.
Here’s a piece of very early writing.

oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201 … _Sense.htm

Given your focus now on Russia, and suffering; of Dostoyevsky, N said that he was the only one of whom he could still learn some psychology.

:-"

I must have read a very bad translation of Crime And Punishment because it did absolutely nothing for me at all
Though I am aware there was much suffering in Dostoyevskys own life which is why he wrote the way that he did
I shall have to get a better translation because that is regarded as one of the true greats of literature so it needs to be read again

The Gulag Archipelago is brutal and depressing on an absolutely momentum scale - a truly clinical study of the human condition
I am nearly halfway through it and I intend to read more of his work - apparently it is now compulsory reading in Russian schools

Also Kafka who was another great existentialist writer and for me is more accessible than Dostoyevsky
I also have to get War And Peace too - Russian writers can really express the true darkness of the soul

Also need to get some Sartre and Foucault and Camus and Koestler as well

The only thing N said that can be tied to the Nazis and the Soviets was something like, ‘there will be massive experiments, and mankind may perish of them. Oh well!’

If you look at the nazi leadership, they were all frail, unappetizing neurotic dwarflike men. Their idea of a master race was a gigantic herd. About as un-Nietzschean as possible. That can be said about the particular values. But the general, brutal audacity of the Nazi and Soviet experiments (both forms of Marxist atheism) was something by which N would not have been shocked in the least - something he saw coming, too.

The central idea of popular nazism however was not bravery but coziness, Heimlichkeit, belonging to a great group. The USSR was a little more manly, if you ask me. At least it sent us into space, which is a Nietzschean accomplishment.

My favourite Russian writer is Gorky. Im not fond of Tolstoy.

Kafka is quite hilarious.

Hitler did of course possess great courage, but it was evidently a compulsive man without self control and it is very likely that the stories are true that he had “handlers” in the great German steel industry.

It was, due to the extravagant greed the French and English permitted themselves as victors in the treaty of Versailles, inevitable that Germany would either fall apart or harshly re-organize. WWII is really to blame on the idiots who drafted that treaty.

Except, further back, the whole situation was started by Bismarck, who played France against Austria and created the German nation and so ushered in military modernity. He introduced the modern rifle in warfare and invented pre-emptive military diplomacy.

The nazis made an extraordinary portrait of Otto von Bismarck, who was of course an admired contemporary of Nietzsche.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wTv2Y5M5e8[/youtube]

All of this however can only serve as preliminary scrimmages on the early path to the Uebermensch. It is boorish cowardice to consider it anything more.

Lol don’t be whistling at me dude.
You didn’t know Untermensch is not a Nietzchean concept and like Prometh you thought N advocated a duality of slave vs master morality.

N is against morality.

Not saying you don’t have some relevant points, but you’re in need of teaching as much as the others here. Ignorance is not ridiculous if it is coupled with modesty, it is ridiculous if it is coupled with pride. N did not advocate ridiculousness.

The aim is: overcoming morality (which is the sublimation of values, a set of sublimated values) in order to arrive at a direct consciousness of values.

One must be healthy like a lion in order to apprehend ones values directly, without the intermediary of morality.

That’s been my success in philosophy. To de-sublimate values. I.e. to overcome morality.