The Ãœbermensch is no longer human(?)

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

[size=150]The Ãœbermensch is no longer human.[/size]

I have always thought this was the single most telling refutation that whitelotus offered on this forum. However, it also strikes me as problematic. At the time, it perplexed me that someone as well read as hermes the thrice great should have failed to understand it. Instead he dismisses the statement with these words;

Perhaps he failed to see the provenance of the statement. Let’s take a closer look.

…

The Ãœbermensch is no longer human.

This statement opens up a particular view of Nietzsche, but also acts as a sort of ‘master key’ in unlocking several other important themes. I want to dwell on the exact meaning intended with this assertion, and contrast it with some interpretations given to it - which I consider to be incorrect.

The first such reading of this statement was originally given as such;

This is not at all what it means. Part of what it is intended to say is that the goal of humanity is now dictated by technology, and that humanism is dead.

Another, somewhat better reading of the statement then, interprets it to mean this;

I think this has caught an element of truth. However there is a double play on the tense employed in the statement; the Ãœbermensch, it says, is no longer human. However, it is not simply the case that, something which was once human, is now something which is not human. First of all, the Ãœbermensch has not yet existed. Second, Nietzsche does not usually take on any humanistic assumptions without placing them immediately under erasure.

(I actually think that the greatest ambiguity in this quote is that Nietzsche did take on certain humanistic assumptions, and that this is precisely what rendered him ultimately incapable of ‘escaping’ metaphysics. What makes this fact so problematic is that, when this quote is taken up by whitelotus, he drops the humanistic pretensions whilst allowing them to shine through in the quote, under an erasure of sorts, for rhetorical effect. So there is a double sense in which Gamer is both right and wrong here.)

Or else, if and where he does (which is uncertain), whitelotus is clear to state his disagreement, as in here (to give a specific example);

Pertaining to the bracketed paragraph above, there is an open question as to whether this constitutes a critical weakness in whitelotus’ reading. This is not a question which I am able to resolve at this time.

A key binary in metaphysics is that between the human and the ‘inhuman’. What is incorrect in Gamer’s interpretation* is that it imagines there was once something called the ‘human’, which is now not human, i.e. ‘cyborg’. The correct response to this is that, under this definition, the human being was always a cyborg to begin with.

*of whitelotus; perhaps not of Nietzsche

This is an understandable misreading, admittedly; if whitelotus had been writing about the ‘human’, then it might even be warranted to assert that he was assuming implicitly the very same, fragile distinction between man and machine, human and technology.

However I do not think that this was the case. Whitelotus was speaking about the Ãœbermensch. This is something different.

Such a statement stands in need of clarification. According to whitelotus, whose position I am now trying to establish, the ‘human’ was a sort of imperative. I intend for the ‘was’ in this sentence to stand out. It is not a timeless statement that I am paraphrasing, but something particular to a certain epoch. That is why the statement…;

The Ãœbermensch is no longer human.

…is bound to cause confusion. One asks, if the human was never not a cyborg, then in what sense do we say that the Ãœbermensch is no longer human? Was he not, also, always already a human/cyborg?

The kind of thinking which allows these ambiguities to shine through in a statement, parenthically, is that which has also given rise, in thinkers like Heidegger and Derrida, to all those awkward uses of the phrase ‘always already’. If you have ever wondered what is the provenance of such terminology, it is perhaps easiest to gain an understanding of it if we continue on with our example.

There is, or rather was, something ‘real’ or ‘true’ - in the now problematic metaphysical dichotomies which have structured the way we have understood ourselves across the ages. For Heidegger, this indicated particular and epochal manifestations of a changing relation of man to being - a fact which he focused on in increasing manner as he embarked on his deconstruction of ‘being’ itself - a deconstruction which was itself later deconstructed by Derrida (of which I elaborate below.)

…

The Ãœbermensch is no longer human.

Let’s try to keep this statement in view.

I offer the following to clarify the situation. For whitelotus, the ‘human’ was an imperative. What is different now is that man stands in the age of technology. Whitelotus is reading Nietzsche through Heideggerian eyes - and contrary to what Impenitent once remarked to me, the Heideggerian reading of Nietzsche is not made ‘incorrect’ or ‘irrelevant’ by something called a ‘deconstruction’ of Heidegger, supposedly undertaken by Derrida. There is some truth here, but it is not enough, on balance, to save Nietzsche from Heidegger. We must remember these words from Derrida himself;

Whitelotus writes, attempting to explicate his own statement;

For whitelotus, I imagine - and this not an indubitable reading - there is no human/inhuman distinction, and the force of taking up a Nietzsche quote which may assume such a distinction, lies probably in rhetorical or polemical concerns. Whatever is the case, it is crucial to remember that, when the Ãœbermensch ceases to be human, it does not therein become ‘inhuman’. What is intended is a leap right out of such a humanistic, metaphysical distinction. Perhaps this was also Nietzsche’s intention as well. When I say that it is taken up in ‘rhetorical’ concerns, I mean that the manner of conveying the idea, and the language used, are arranged towards the audience, and this dictates what ‘voice’ is taken up. What is being searched for, to paraphrase Nietzsche, are the ‘ears capable of hearing this truth’.

…

The Ãœbermensch is no longer human.

What can we say then, to summarise this statement?

We are no longer able, in our present age, to put forth our goal using the humanistic presuppositions of metaphysics. What it says, more accurately, is that we - man - no longer posit our own goal; the trajectory of the ‘human race’ now becomes something which is not human or inhuman.

What then does it become? Nietzsche wrote, we remember, that “man is something which should be overcome”. Is this a battle cry against humanism? I am not certain of the answer to this question.

If there is anyone who sees things clearer, and can offer any useful thoughts on any aspect of this post, I would be much obliged.

:slight_smile:

Regards,

James

Sunset, Mont Blanc - by Wenzel Hablik, from the cover of Thus Spoke Zarathustra

2

Pardon me, but I think you are reading far, far too much into this and going off onto tangents that have, really, nothing to do with the concept at all.

In the first place, the statement is highly arguable. From the great body of Nietzsche’s work, it’s pretty clear that the Ubermensch is conceived of as what it is in humanity to be – that he is the human who has healed or transcended individuation. What he is “over” or “trans” (for which reason I prefer “transhuman” to “superman” as a translation, is the “all too human,” not humanity per se. Nietzsche’s body of work as a whole is intensely reliant on definitions and explorations in the earlier books, and the rhetoric has to be interpreted in terms of those definitions and interpretations.

So it may not be correct to suggest that the Uebermensch is no longer human, but it would be unequivocally correct IMO to suggest that the Uebermensch is no longer all-too-human.

The key passage to interpret this trope is in Also Sprach Zarathustra (and I see my copy is packed away, so I quote from memory and hope I have not got the wording wrong, because the wording is crucial): "The superman/transhuman/Uebermensch is a rope stretched between Ape and the Abyss. And, of course, Zarathustra is the dancer on that rope.

3

‘what it is in humanity to be’… hmm… as the “human race”?

What do you come up with when you compare all this to what he said about the ‘last man’?

I’m not prepared for in-depth discussion… just curious… will sit back and listen.

4

In the Darwinian world after Nietzsche’s death we have to remind ourselves very sternly that “evolution” was not for Nietzsche a term of biology, but of psychology. So, yes, “the human race” as a given biological category, acting out its Will to Power.

Wasn’t the discussion of the last man a picture of a society in the final throes of death because it hasn’t been refreshed by a new agon?

5

Well, can you dig out your book and read it again (the ‘last man’ part), and quote to me the parts you got your interpretation from? I didn’t get that at all.

6

James, let us not exclude the possibility that being as the idea of “cybornetics” and “robots and humanity unifying” was not yet in the scope of Nietzsche’s imagination in terms of defining the Ubermensch. Thus, it can be possible that Nietzsche was unsure what the Ubermensch was to become out of humanity but was certain, given the physical and mental state of humanity at the time when he lived, that the Ubermensch could not be anymore human than it already was and that to define whatever was above this humanity could only be regarded as being no longer human.

Also, there is the matter of “morality” which Nietzsche saw the Ubermensch would be above. Is it not fair to say that since humanity bases its existence on the principals of morality, that to no longer adhere to these principal would be to be no longer human?

It is understandable that humanity, as it has been for the last five some millenia, has not really changed much. In fact the only things that have changed is how much we know and our means of obtaining that knowledge. So we could say that humanity has reached its full potential and that to go beyond that would be to enter the realm of the Ubermensch. So then to go beyond humanity would be no longer human.

Then again, it’s all really a matter of interpretation, as Nietzsche is so fond of pointing out…

7

James,

I really wonder if what Nietzsche meant was nothing more than “The Ubermensch is no longer German”.

Dunamis

8

I have seen endless interpretations of the Overman, on philosophy boards far and wide, by priests, thinkers and thugs alike. And it is no longer a question of the accuracy of these interpretations, but rather who is doing the interpretation; do they deserve to- are they a discussion or a deed. I no longer ask “show me your image of this Overman,” but instead “let me see you, squanderer, and I shall have a peek at your virtue.” Every man likens the Overman to himself- is it any suprise that Nietzsche spoke too soon? Certainly not, the philosophy board is the market place- where we come for discussion and entertainment. The Overman cannot be done by squanderers. Today it is nothing more than a discussion over crumpets and coffee. When I hear the word “Overman” uttered today, my instinct tells me to run…today I shall wait out the storm with high hopes.

Nietzsche puts forth the tight-rope walker event as a metaphor to describe the Overman in a very specific setting. The “market-place” is the common man- the rope is an effort to cross over the market-place, the walker, in this setting, represents the simulation of the once Dionysian reality into a mere art form- an entertainment, a fossilization.

Just as suspected, the market-place, with lame ears, fails to identify the metaphorical value of Zarathustra’s example. He speaks:

“There they stand,” he said to his heart; “there they laugh. They do not understand me; I am not the mouth for these ears. Must one smash their ears before they learn to listen with their eyes? Must one clatter like kettledrums and preachers of repentance? Or do they believe only the stammerer?”- Zarathustra

Of course the market place is there for entertainment only, and none understand the reality and neccessity of danger, until the rope walker actually falls- they then scatter- Zarathustra remains motionless beside the man after he hits the ground.

The man, suprised by Zarathustra, suspects that he is the devil come to take him. Zarathustra comforts the man and promises no such thing- “There is no devil and no hell, your soul will be dead even before your body: fear nothing further.” The man replies “if you speak the truth, I lose nothing when I lose my life.” The man believes that he is nothing more than a clumsy beast, and Zarathustra corrects him, and gives him praise: “You have made danger your vocation; there is nothing contemptible in that. Now you perish of your vocation; for that I will bury you with my own hands.” The man, in his last breath, offers his hand in thanks.

The absolute perfection of this metaphor lies in its design- the placement, the crowd, the event, and the conclusion.

The market place represents the industrial horde- the modernization of society, the implementation of mediocrity through religious values- the average civilian who comes to view danger as an entertainment, as a spectator- those who want to see accident and failure, because they themselves haven’t the courage to live dangerously. They do not want the walker to succeed, they secretly want him to fall, because they themselves could never walk that rope- they look for equality. This is the suspicion and disgust looming within them. They seek equality by hording, and where danger was once neccessary to create, it becomes mere entertainment, a luxury, for the weak. “We want to see the walker!” shouts the crowd. No, my friends, they do not want to see this man go over, they want him to fall, to go under, so they can rest assured that great feats are no longer real but fantastic imagery- the coward always admires his hero.

For Nietzsche, the Overman is nothing more than a quickening, a faster pace toward inevitable fate, and to love it. The strength of the Overman is in his ability to “kick what is already falling,” and the dangers involved in this freedom- this straight line, this goal- “a yes…a no.” For every strong man there are twenty averages, pulling him down, like the spectators grasping at the walker with their jealous eyes.

The atmosphere means everything. The Overman was designed as a reaction to Religion and the doctrine of equality. Where strong men could no longer rule, where mediocrity became overwhelming, the Overman, the type, was on his own. The poles are reversed: danger was once the rule, now it becomes the exception. It becomes a simulation were it was once lived. Now, the Overman is nothing more than a comic tragedy:

“Verily, it is a beautiful catch of fish that Zarathustra has brought today! Not a man has he caught, but a corpse. Human existence is uncanny and still without meaning: a jester can become man’s fatality. I will teach men the meaning of their existence- the overman, the lightning out of the dark cloud of man. But I am still far from them, and my sense does not speak to their senses. To men I am still the mean between a fool and a corpse. Dark is the night, dark are Zarathustra’s ways. Come, cold, stiff companion! I shall carry you where I may bury you with my own hands.”- Zarathustra

You see that the Overman, at this point, is not a creative event, but rather an undoing of what has become of man. The Overman will appear as a folly to the majority, a mistake, an uneccessary risk…an entertainment event, but he is a devolution, a destruction of modernization, industrialization, a re-naturalization of the beast in man. Between plant and ghost we linger. Man must become a beast once again.

The scales upon which the ideal balances is always between the “too late” and the “not soon enough.” At any moment the Overman can become a creator- but in irony this must be destruction. That is the strangeness in Nietzsche’s Zarathustra. And today, the image is slandered by everyone who speaks- one in a million truely know the Overman, but everyone likens him to himself.

A private joke for the few Overmen who do live today.

9

construction… deconstruction… what’s the difference? perspective, maybe?

I didn’t get the sense that there was any undoing going on in the market place. They were deaf. I just got the feeling he was setting up distinctions and modeling that his message would only be heard by those who already understood it.

10

[size=75]This one’s dedicated to my very own little Techno-Monkey, who today counted to ten (in Turkish unfortunately :cry: ) for the very first time.[/size]

I’d say this is wrong. Wrong in that man has always stood in the age of technology. Technology, either lying in wait, in potential, locked inside the fervent imagination of a man, perhaps the first one who hefted a rock in his hand, watched it’s trajectory as it flew through the air, looked at the birds, at their wings, and hesitantly flapped his arms… Or now, when one man can shout further than the humpbacked whale, and swoop faster than a falcon. Technology is not mobile-phones and fighter-jets, technology is a function of the human brain, it’s ability to shuffle pre-percieved forms, juggle abstract concepts and put the results together, into shapes never before seen by man or beast. And to pass those foundations down, from father to son, for them to build yet more wonders upon.

You cannot separate the human from the machine, in the same way you cannot separate the snail from its shell, or the termite from its nest. The machines we create are as natural an extention of ourselves and our nature as the ink the octopus squirts from its sac. That it is not something produced entirely by unconscious biological process, does not change its role in defining what we are. We are the tool-making monkies. (Well, yes-yes apes, I know - but monkies are funnier) Take away our tools and our ability to make them - and then we are no-longer human.

Yes. I think that is the case. But is there any difference…?

My father, for example, both his knee-joints are metal and ceramic, woven by science’s cunning into his very sinews, is he less human than me…? Or more…? Or is the question pure nonsense…?

The sciences of prosthetics, and biocompatible materials are developing quickly. Myo-electric interfaces are becoming more sensitive, allowing better control, a finer touch. How long will it be until the flesh is overcome in some respects by what is not-flesh…? Already there are people with surgical fetishes, other people who compliment their beauty, or its lack, under the knives of science. I’ve read first hand accounts of (okay - pretty whacky) people with amputation-compulsions, a middle-aged man blew his own leg off with a shotgun… Because he thought false-legs were ‘cool’.

Imagine if false legs were not only cool… But better, faster, stronger, than the real thing. How many more people would jump on the bandwagon if that were so…? We customize our cars, why not ourselves…?

At what point would that person stop being human…? False limbs…? Fake heart…? Was Steve Austin still human…?

I’ve always thought it bizzare that a well-made watch will out-exist the average human. Peoples lives are already extended comparative to our ancestors, medical science has its sights set on death, and perhaps one day, people will stop dying…

The mind-body question will soon be answered by practical experiment.

And what about that mind…? Is it so great…? Well, okay - its a miracle of organic evolutionary wizardry, but damn - I hate forgetting names…
Hey you need: “You name itâ„¢” The cranial plug-in… Never forget a name or a face again…!

Learning a bloody language takes years of practice…
Hey, you need: “Liquid-Lingoâ„¢” The Nano-Biosoft solution to twisted tongues…

Need a degree…? - get a chip. Need to be handy with the ladies…? - Get a chip. Need a life…? Get a chip.

Already we can almost monitor a thought in real-time with MRI, how long until we can create a support medium for thought itself…?

Then it will be a case of ‘Fuck it’ - cut out the meat completely - upload yourself into a machine. Live in virtual. Walk around in the super-slick Brad-Pitt3000â„¢ ambulatory device - looks and sounds just like the real thing.

How do you solve the problem of travelling at light speed…? Easy, become light. Jump from one machine-puppet to the next, across worlds if you like. Machines can exist in far worse conditions than our frail little flesh. Who wouldn’t want to spend a long weekend on Pluto, and be back in time for teatime on Monday…?

The pluses would so overmatch the minuses, that many would not be able to resist… How many of us sad-sacks here spend great portion of our lives online - What is ILP except a poor attempt to upload a part of our consciousness onto a machine…?

Should we resist at all…? We will, or to an extent - have now, a choice that has never been faced by any other animal - A choice of wether to evolve or not. Where does our basic humanity reside…?

I don’t think he or she ever was.

11

You win the prize.

12

Tab.,

Wrong in that man has always stood in the age of technology.

Wrong in that Life has always been the age of technology.

Dunamis

13

Ooh-Ooh, don’t tell me… Is it a car…? Or is it, is it… A lifetime subscription to Peg-Leg pornstars…?

I can almost guarrentee that my TV is bigger than yours… Does that mean I’m more evolved…?

14

Tab.,

Ooh-Ooh, don’t tell me… Is it a car…?

No. Its called DNA and RNA. If you haven’t gotten your subscription renewed, perhaps its a good time to send your check in. :slight_smile:

Dunamis

15

DNA & RNA… Pfff… Old-fashioned… :laughing:

16

SNN:

I suspect that for Nietzsche, industrialization was happening too quickly, and he blamed religion for the modern establishment of civilization, what would have otherwise happened at a slower pace. Instead of a natural course of societal development, that being a distribution of powers which would fall into place on their own accord- masters take up ruling, slaves take up working- there happened a sudden leveling of all strengths under the doctrine of “spiritual equality”- men in the eyes of a God. This program was put forth by the religious ranks, and men were then corralled, so to speak, rather than hierarchies forming by their own organization. Nietzsche always kept one eye on the Romantic version of civilization, and viewed modern societies in comparison to that. For him, science was sweeping across Europe at a dangerous rate and there were “freedoms” passed out irresponsibly and haphazardously. For Nietzsche, the balance between the Apollonian and Dionysian was losing its equalibrium- and where the Dionysian ceased to be lived, and became an aesthetic value, what was sacred became lost.

During his time Darwinism was popular, so it is no suprise that he espoused the ideals of eugenics- healthy, cautious breeding. But he also understood, philosophically, that even the perfect society was essentially meaningless and had no goal outside of itself. His metaphysical implication and importance of the Dionysian spirit was a troublesome ideal to combine with the seriousness of science and its task to establish the good society. He was, in a way, caught in his own paradox- no point for a great society, but no point in not trying to establish one either. That, I believe, is why he naturally falls back to the Darwinism of the times, while also wanting science to remain “gay,” a sort of playful experience rather than a serious investment.

Let the chips fall where they may, amor-fati, was his signature. He invented the Overman to act as a kind of pressure valve to release the nervous stupor generated in a society that was forming by the wrong principles- the ideal of equality professed by religion; anti-natural so far, or so he believed. But there again, even he knew there was nothing unnatural in the world, and this, perhaps, was the irony that made him mad. To compensate for this he formed the maxim: everything exists to overcome itself. While the perfect civilization should be aquired…it too would fade away. There was never a final ideal, in that sense, but only a constant endless bridge into the abyss.

Of course there are several ways to interpret the Overman, as I mentioned before. But if you look closely at the historical period, as well as the style or characterization in which Zarathustra was presented, you can see a common theme. I find that theme to be a barbarianism achieved through a vigilante type- where the poles are reversed- the animalistic man is the greater man, the devolutionist- breaking society apart. That’s why I call it destructive…it is contingent to the times and the disaster of civilization. I also think Nietzsche saw what Marx saw, as far as the division of strengths through class. Nietzsche saw the weak politician, the priest, resting on the back of the worker…he sensed the danger to come, I believe.

My God! What if Nietzsche lived today? Would he even walk into a Wal-Mart? Could he even look at George W. Bush with a straight face?

And no, Nietzsche couldn’t have possibly had in mind the idea of cybornetics. Come on, they didn’t even have engines back then, much less computers.

17

That, I believe, is why he naturally falls back to the Darwinism of the times, while also wanting science to remain “gay,” a sort of playful experience rather than a serious investment.

"Anti Darwin.- What surprises me most on making a general survey of the great destinies of man, is that I invariably see the reverse of what today Darwin and his school sees or will persist in seeing: selection in favour of the stronger, the better constituted, and the progress of the species. Precisely the reverse of this stares one in the face: the suppression of the lucky cases, the uselessness of the more highly constituted types, the inevitable mastery of the mediocre, and even of those who are below mediocrity. Unless we are shown some reason why man is an exception among living creatures, I incline to the view that Darwin’s school is everywhere at fault. That will to power, in which I perceive the ultimate reason and character of all change, explains why it is that selection is never in favour of the exceptions, and of the lucky cases: the strongest and happiest natures are weak when they are confronted with a majority ruled by gregarious instincts and the fear which possesses the weak. My general view of the world of values shows that in the highest values which now sway the destiny of man, the happy cases among men, the select specimens, do not prevail: but rather the decadent specimens- perhaps there is nothing more interesting in the whole world than this unpleasant spectacle.”

Will To Power 685

Dunamis

18

Again, greatness cannot appear were resources are bogged in mediocrity.

The formula can work both ways: the strong will survive and adapt- the masses make up a strength that has such a force and perseverance. The spirit, dear Dunamis, of the Will to Power works through the entire organism of society. A cancer has a will to power, too.

You know this. The weak have their strength in reacting. From a distance, from the stars, it all looks the same.

“One day the star will grow cold, and all the animals will have to die.”- Nietzsche

19

I am simply pointing out that Nietzsche made several anti-Darwinist statements, which you over-simplified by your “Darwin was very popular then” thought.

Dunamis

20

Everyone

No time to respond to everyone now. Got your point Tab. - it’s in the original post - wasn’t sure whether it was Nietzsche’s though…

More later.

Regards,

James