Haven’t you heard that the Last Man lives the longest and dies off last?
Overhuman strength doesn’t make you live long/survive, it just makes you achieve greatness before you die.
Survival is of no concern to the ubermensch and his ilk, only a fully expressable will to power. Overhumanly strength simply allows this to happen.
An important point is that a failing dream to achieve this suggests one is no such superman. I would recommend any who struggle and strive in vain to achieve or find such a thing in others cease to do so, because that’s just embarrassing. These people fail simply because they are mere men only, who cannot surpass their state. They possess no overhumanly strength.
And yet they will survive just fine.
Supermen cannot be evaluated by mere opinions and pursuant judgements. The mere attempt to try to define who or rather what a superman consists of is totally off.
Supermen need not be such glorious figures as say, Napoleon Bonaparte, they may be quiet, unassuming individuals carrying incomprehensible burdens, for the benefit of others. You may not even recognise them. Super itself may be the object of redefinition and conjecture, and this is why attempt to categorise them are doomed to utter failure. Projective identification does not limit the substance of these people, and I am afraid superman is meant to be only a conceptual entity, a relational entity enveloping a type, a kind of being which holds certain invaluable beliefs, as it were their own, beliefs which may not at all be that evident to even the most scrupolous inspection.
The Superman is not some unattainable, abstract, merely “conceptual” ideal. That would be directly contrary to the Nietzschean message, which is to sculpt some REALISTIC concept of the Superman whilst giving it room to breathe and animate by itself. The precision is such that all it lacks is a real person to metaphorically wear these clothes.
Ultimately, yes, there is little point in speculating on the exact result of this, but that is not to say we can say nothing about it and that it cannot be grounded by certain specific interpretations based on Nietzsche’s descriptions.
Further, the quiet, unassuming individual whom you describe, that is to say the martyr, is far from Ubermensch! Those who think in such a way are usually themselves quiet and unassuming, who see some common ground between themselves and the various grand descriptions in Nietzsche’s books, but ultimately they are way off and need to stop dreaming and realise their place. If you were beyond man, not only you would know it but everyone else would too. A Zarathustra isn’t an Ubermensch.
Yes Silhoutte, I agree, but------------------------------ Jesus the man, the simple carpenter with his 12 friends, and the god like person he became. Buddha the man, and the buddha everyone is. In a sense, superior people have this quality of sharing their superiority on some level. Here, by sharing these qualities we become participants. The superman will also do this also, voluntarily or be design. The qualities which are contained in him, will be more important than the man himself. In this, even now, are the participants with this fore knowledge
The Superman is gonna sit down for lunch and would probably brush his teeth etc., but this “human side” of him is not the same as him having a quiet and unassuming character. The Superman is physically a man, but there isn’t thus a Superman in all of us like you seem to be saying there’s a Buddha in everyone. Another central Nietzschean concept is separation and exclusivity. He explicitly writes only to the few, and says much about the distance between men, and about separation. The Superman is very much so distinct from man. And very much so distinct from the Superman you see in the movies/in comics/on tv - they are no relation in anything but name.
I just brought it in as a bad analogy. However the exclusivity you are describing and the boundaries set, again are a prerequisite, on esoteric grounds. However as all conscious forms, there is always a demand for more accessibility via interpretation, and even the superman will have his select group with whom he may at least communicate on the levels they can understand$ so dissemination will enhance at least the perception that these boundaries are not set in stone.
Some people see decadence everywhere they look, it’s a weird kind of paranoia almost. They become obsessed with the idea that moral decay is the source for the downfall of civilizations. In every moral transformation they then see decay, rather than evolution. It’s a shame, but then some people don’t really understand what morality is, or that it changes constantly.
This is true.
The particular quality of “friends”, as distinct from the indiscriminant friendships of the herd, is another important part of Nietzsche’s philosophy. Presumably there aren’t a bunch of ubermenschen all buddied up together, but rather one who befriends… higher men? I’m not actually clear on whether the ubermensch is necessarily singular at any one time, over the possibility of plural. Whichever way though, the ubermensch supposedly communicates through the highest ranks downwards - whilst he may have “enough” in common with his friends, he is far distinct from the last man and other lower ranks.
Again attachment starts with hormones. Ego then perhaps love. Love is not necessary to breeding and survival it is a luxury born of comfort. It is hardly circular , fairly straightlined. It is when desperate needs are met that we, including all life can form love.
Rofl you went primordial, I did not. If something is not needed it falls into unnecessary and decadence. We desire love, we do not need it. You know it and I know it.
By this argument love is decadent. Or sign of decadence. But if not for this form of decadence, we would abandon our babies to coping with life using only their innate abilities. That's absurd.
It is! History has no other use but to prove that. The most people decline and the few grow morally, because morals are made out of wisdom…
Look, I haven’t read your entire post, but I have seen one good question: the origin of morals. Morals are made out of wisdom (eternal rules, or lasting truths) and of the daily needs of the individuals: the laws. It is a mix of laws and wisdom. Decadence would mean that laws prevail and wisdom is forgotten.
There is definitely a “golden age” mentality that I have noted elsewhere; things are always going to shit.
Today we see it as a crime against the individual to deny or try to hide a person’s homosexuality. And the vast majority of people in Europe would consider it a poor thing indeed if a person were to receive criticism for simply being honest about their sexuality.
But for most of the last century homosexuality not not just frowned upon, but was thought utterly reprehensible and was almost universally illegal.
This is, however, a textbook definition of moral decadence.
No, as I said earlier hormones bond parent to child. I will see if I can’t find a link pertaining to this. A few studies have been done. Love is after bonding and it is desired.
HC, I am deeply loved by my parents and I deeply love my son. I love my family and they love me.
