The key facalty of the overman:

Which is the greater key to himself?

Aggression or Initiative?
Higher tastes?
Or carnal meaningfulness?

There is a psychological property, and a principal which is key for the becoming of the overman. What would that mainly be?

… Awareness. Some one once said " Living an un anylized life is not living." All matter has awareness to a degree. We have the most awareness and yet not all of it.
…Sequentially, nobility follows. Humbleness and a life of service.
…Creativity, initiative, and carnal meaningfull ness share the next key. The need to create and procreate are basic.
…Power will aid to live fearless. To be independent but not aggressive.
…Accuracy and higher tastes are preferential and/or points of view.

Awareness requires interest, aswel.
Interest requires desire, longing, passion, craving.
Craving is a sort of suffering.
A birth-pain.

Creativity, without a doubt.

If you are not creative, you are not inspired. If you are not inspired, you are not real.



Not copying old dogmas and commands, but instead, creating beyond himself, afresh, giving meaning to the earth. Creativity, creation, evolution. Not the atavism back to the worm.

I must agree that creativity is essential. Dealing with man as a temporal being and with the assurance of his constant flux we should understand that creativity and ingenuity are essential to deal with something that is not static.

Nietzsche’s overman is nothing more than a person who does not submit to anyone’s moral authority, and, more importantly, a person who answers only to his biological desires. “Reason” and “rationale” were for Nietzsche something secondary to the force of will, which he, like his bedfellows Schopenahuer and Freud, believed were the only drives that were substantial and meaningful. Consciousness is, for them, the effect of a sublimated cause, something that has its origins in conditioned desires and drives, in “instincts.” (Sartre demolished the concept of “instinct”, btw.)

Once you understand this preliminary starting point for the concept of the overman, what follows is quite arbitrary and of little importance. An overman is a machine of desire-feeding force with no concern for anything else. I say this because I am very familiar with Nietzsche and I know the result, the only possibly logical interpretation of his idea in combination with what else Nietzsche believed.

There is absolutely no sentiment toward existence in Nietzsche. There is no political theory, no sociological theory, no useful empirical theory for progressive science and ethics. What you mistake as a brief demarcation of “the noble aristocratic society” in Nietzsche’s ponderings is nothing more than his own little fascination with healthy types, dominant personalities, historical heros, …powerful people in general. Do not be fooled for a moment in believing that he wanted, or even believed, that a successful noble society was possible; at the outset, any submission to power other than one’s own power was decadent. It is therefore, according to his own idea, impossible for a great society to ever occur.

It is the foundation of Nietzsche’s philosophy that revokes most of his theory as it followed and developed throughout his life. While he had the potential and intellect to design a formidable and logically accessible theory for mankind…he instead fell into poetry, non-sequitor, and polemic ranting.

How are we to understand a philosopher who, one book later, either completely contradicts what he said a moment ago, or increases the confusion ten-fold. There is no connection in aphoristic writing. Nietzsche’s books are equivalent to a journal or personal diary, and when he did say something objective and clear…he turned around and denied the possibility of objective knowledge in general.

The modern world of Nietzsche readers and worshippers consists of nihilists who, in secrecy, practice secular ethics and elitism, and in good Nietzschean fashion, drool over the idea of exploiting something, somewhere, somehow.

The important thing to understand here is that although this “breed” of person will one day be extinct, it is a neccesary expediency toward destruction, chaos, and anarchy.

To put it in the form of an analogy: the Marxists let the Nietzscheans play, so that they might help ussher revolution into existence. When and if the moment is right, they will be thanked, and then wiped out once and for all.

In the future, a family will walk through a city museum. A parent will say to its child “see that picture, junior? That’s a picture of Nietzsche, the first and last great madman that helped make the world a better place. He was responsible for wars “unlike this planet has ever seen”. And see that picture over there? That’s Hitler, who was influenced by Nietzsche, and who also helped bring the world to its neccesary catastrophe. And finally, see that guy over there with the big white beard? That’s Marx. The godfather of it all.”


He did not portray the overman as some sort of elite immoral aristocrat who amorally takes anything he wants. Instead, N put creation above the act of taking. The common consumers were the “poisonous flies” which reduce higher falue into lower value, and turn originality into mimetics. He suggested the overman live near poverty in solitude, so that one does not become a slave to society and become like the petty herd.

Japan, for example in modern times, is the most energy-efficient nation on earth. But also, they have a very small amount of land, very small stocks of resources, they have less than we. Efficiency and creativity may well bloom in a state of non-over-abundance, a state of unwastefulness, in which things must be portioned out and made, instead of take abundantly.

Nietzche was in agreement with many sorts of ancient Roman virtues. He saw the Roman and the Christian cultures as an example of slave and master moralities in struggle against one another, internally and externally. Being Austere is one of the ancient Roman virtues. And it is also Austere to reduce any form of taking, up antil one only creates and destroys, instead of taking and copying.

Non-submission is a SUB-FACTOR of indepedance, sufficiency and creativity. :smiley:

Of course he did. The overman was a concept developed in contrast to the Christian morality, the ascetic virtures of nihilism and denial of the will. Religion in general, anything which sought to redeem this world with another world. Nietzsche was the polar opposite of Schopenhauer; the will should be one that embraces suffering, one that says “yes!” to danger and fate, one that celebrates the meaninglessness of existence and does not hesistate to “take what it desires.”

Creation of what? You are slipping into metaphors and the same romantic bullshit Nietzsche fell into. Creation is strictly, and only, a process of utilizing the empirical world of instruments. One cannot “create” ideas, only things. Ideas and concepts are directly related to material circumstances. One cannot slip off into the nether worlds of “art” and “metaphors” and create anything but nonsensical hocus-pocus. Fucking romantics.

Here we go again. The “common consumers” and “herd” were no more poisonous than the fucking ruling class bourgeoise that made them that way. EVERYTHING about social analysis is based from a materialistic and historical perspective. EVERY class and type of person is generated from an economic context. Nobody is the overman, nobody is the herd, nobody is the noble, and nobody is the magician of hermetic black-magic. Drop the romantic metaphors and get with reality.

That’s nihilism, pure and simple, because it is a means to escape the moral conventions of society, rather than revolutionize them, and accept defeat, abstinance, exhaustion, and the absurd. Nietzsche should’ve rediscovered Epicurus and thought twice about his “solution to existence.”

No. What he saw, but misunderstood, was a class difference…not a metaphysical “moral” difference between castes and virtues. The master is the bourgeoise…the slave the proletariat. The proper analysis of society is through an examination of its modes of production. There is nothing else but metaphor. Master and slave means nothing more than “owner and worker.”

And besides this point, you have better luck reading Hegel’s concepts of lordship and bondage to gain an understanding of the “coming to awareness” of class consciousness through venues of alienation. The surrogate class evolves dialectically to overcome its own contradictions: owners do nothing in a mode of production > workers revolt and eliminate them. This is by neccessity. It is historically active and dynamic.

Still I love Fritz. Don’t get me wrong.

What do Nietzsche, Goethe and Beethoven have in common ? Moral autonomy, power and the ideal of the healthy type can be construed adequately through the lens of creativity. Is it not ?

Mr. Scevola, the problem I have with the term “creativity” is that it is such a versatile word that it can be dangerous. A murder can be creative. Rape can be creative. Destructive tendencies can be called creative. “Creativity” is just as accessible to the lawless heathens as it is to compassionate citizens. Who’s hands and who’s mouth decides what is creative?

It is therefore necessary to demand an objective definition which cannot be misused in a dangerous way.

Look at the elements involved in the effect of creativity. The term implies a force of manipulation and an object which is manipulated. “Making” is to change and/or effect an empirical state, or to organize an idea as a composition of other ideas. But nothing is created from without the world…so it is therefore obvious that perhaps the easiest definition is simply to “change” a state of events-- thinking or acting.

We cannot misuse the word as Nietzsche did, and pretend as if human kind can become something extraordinarily different from what he is to par. He is flesh and idea…and nothing besides!

It follows that the propagation of the flesh and idea is the means and premise upon which creative forces are harnessed. Any form of creative power which threatens this propagation is, ipso facto, contradictive and destructive.


And down it goes…

There’s a difference between want and need.
There’s a difference between health and excitement.

Creation is constructive, none-the-less, despite it being only a result of reality and the elemental resources. I’ve slipped into metaphor?, but what have you slipped into!? Something like anger?

That’s why he called the state a cold beast. A monster. It was not the people.

Drop what for what…?
And then what…?

I feel ones class and type has allot to do with ones exposures and ones genes. “Class” not as a social roll, but as a state of being, as quality and as attribute. It has much to do with the media [arts], and the parents [eugenics/sexual selection]. “Type of person” is not econocentric.

No it’s not.

Avoiding exposure to rubbish is not self-defeating, and also, it is not destructive.

How did it all Marxisize so fast?..

“There’s no overman. The overman would be the result of an economic system of production in society. His non-existence or his existence depends upon politics and economics. Those politics and those economics nead communism as soon as possible, so that they can be made equal, and utopian.”
Is that it…?

I think that’s bias talking…

What is aware of interest, desire, longing, passion or craving… Duh!

The Overman IMO is simply someone who has become master of himself. Anyone that has seriously tried to “Know Thyself” sees how far they are from the overman.

A personal relationship with our lord and savior Jesus Christ.



Does Jesus Christ reside in England? How did he save me, was he that guy who pushed me out of the way of the car when I was crossing the street not to long ago?

LOL. Yes, that’s him.

Wrong. If a man of completely average qualities ‘masters himself’, he will not be an overman. Nietzsche considered Socrates to be a man who ‘mastered himself’, but would undoubtedly not call him an overman.

A random man from England (he moved there from Jamaica) changed my spare tire. Is he Jesus too?

That is proboably him. I heard he likes to do good deeds.