The Subtlty of Superman

Social Forums Non-Philosophical Chat
1

Superman is a cultural icon, there’s no doubt about it. From his earliest comic appearances as a super-powered dentist to the Fleisher animated serials to his modern incarnations in Grant Morrison’s All Star Superman, Justice League and the upcoming Superman returns. That big “S” has become an important symbol in our American mythology.

But the question is, has he lost any relevance? Many would anwer “yes”. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard friends groan about the boy-scout nature and the flawlessness of Superman. I find it interesting in this modern era of comics we turned to the flawed heroes like Batman, Wolverine, and Spawn leaving the pearly-whites to a bygone era.

Its easy to dismiss the Big Blue and say that no one would be like that. That his power would corrupt him absolutely. I think its that idealism that makes Superman endeering. His rose-colored view of the world as a place where he can make everything right is his greatest strength and his bitter weakness. Superman, if you think about it, is an incredibly self-controlled and disciplined person. He has to keep his strength in check at all times. He has to control his anger and not take it out on the next bank robber and disintegrate the poor louse. I believe that not only is the fact that he controls his strength and his anger an inspiration quality but I think its the only way a person like him would be able to live in society. I mean if Superman was seen as a threat for even a second he would be killed. Its not like there isn’t enough kryptonite around to do it.

Anyway, I’ve ranted on quite enough. I wanted to see what other people had to say. Plus it seemed like that was the way my Ultimate Avengers thead was going anyway.

2

One of the main points about the character is that the way that he was raised made all of the difference in his behavior.

The theme of the country boy coming to the big city is even seen in Bruce Lee movies, and those are from another culture. That’s because it is a long held belief that the city environment creates a negative person that the country does not. Currently, it’s escaping my mind, but I can’t remember who first proposed the idea.

The Enlightenment

Superman also represents the outsider that is made “normal” by his association with down to Earth people. So, you could have been born an aristocrat or the son of a killer and that’s made irrelevant by your new life in a new land. So, Superman sends a message about America in this way. It doesn’t matter who your family was in Europe, or wherever, if you embrace the simple ethics of the farmer you’re going to be good to go.

Adlerian Psychology versus Nietzschian Philosophy

Adlerian psychology in many ways is a response to Nietzschian philosophy. Nietzsche proposes the Superman that rules over the herd through his superiority. Adler proposes that humans are ALL a herd animal and that a real Superman helps and cooperates with the herd and does not fight against it. Adler developed this idea from the theory of evolution, and I suggest that although he was only an ethnic Jew, further enhanced them from the communal ideas of Judaism.

I believe that Superman’s development in the mid-1930s was a direct response to growing Nazism, and since this period was the height of Adlerian psychology’s popularity, he is a direct expression of that concept. Additionally, Superman’s creators were Jewish guys that most likely had many of the same influences.

So, Superman is a character that has ultimate power, but does not choose to make himself the king of the world. Rather he uses his power to assist everyone that he can without a request for payment (he’s a communist) and so everyone “pays” him with praise, respect, and help when needed. I recall watching a cartoon version of the story where Superman is getting seriously injured by an enemy when a human charges forth and confronts the enemy only to get murdered, then a whole crowd of humans surges forward to protect the fallen Superman. The enemy becomes flabbergasted and leaves. That’s a dramatic example of the herd confronting the outside aggressor.

Meanwhile, many of his enemies are just as powerful as he is, but decide to seek praise and respect by commanding it and attempt to force their individuality on the group. So, in the end no one cooperates with them and they get very little of what they want, or are surrounded by a bunch of idiots that they don’t respect, but respect lame respect from. So, the only difference between Superman and one of his enemies is their approach to life.

That idea is directly from Adlerian Psychology as he proposed that humans become dysfunctional when they turn from a cooperative approach to life to a self-centered one. The idea of “me over everyone” causes others to gang up on you, thus making it more difficult to achieve said goals.

In the end, Superman represents how any smart and powerful person ought to approach life, from an Adlerian/communist perspective, of course.

Relevance:

To many people in their twenties comic book characters might be seem like kid’s stuff, but they are some of the first characters and stories that we really ever see or get to know. It’s my bet that there’re people in nursing homes that can’t wipe their butt that remember Superman.

I also bet that most people like him at least just a little, and what does that say?

3

Nietzsche proposes the Superman that rules over the herd through his superiority.

Adler proposes that humans are ALL a herd animal and that a real Superman helps and cooperates with the herd and does not fight against it.

I don’t think there is any fundamental difference involved here. Superiority as in existential humanity is the common ground for both. The man’s existentiality is not justified by his behaviour, but indicated by his beaviour. Nietzsche never made clear what would the superman chose as a profession, otherwise that would demean the profoundity of his philosophy. Between the choices of ruler and hermit, the latter is most likely to be intepreted as the prefered choice, by most Nietzschean sholars.

I sure have little idea about Adler beyond the fact that he was deeply influenced by Nietzsche. It is shown by especially, Kaufmann, that most people were were influenced by Nietzsche were significantly misguided in some way or another. Nietzsche has been misunderstood on many apparant points, even by a handful of prominet thinkers, te reason is largely that Nietzsche has been severly misrepresented, mainly by a bunch of Nazis.

Overally speaking, I think that many hitherto have taken for granted that they can somehow sort the mind of an utter genius such as Nietzsche. There is a lack of humility involved here. Nietzsche is a prophet whose intellectual power and scope surpasses people living decades after. As Kaufmann has most comprehensively and convincingly demostrated: all misinterpretations on Nietzsche can be refuted by the virtue of quoting from his books alone. This is something that can be expected to happen to all top calibre thinkers throghout history. This is a sign indicating unfathomable genius. Thus I’m content with the fact that Nietzsche has been controversial in the marrow.

4

Uni,

Thanks for stopping by. I assumed that the subject would be attractive to you.

Now, I think that I’m pretty clear on the idea that Nietzsche promotes individualism rather than a collective concept of living. The Nietzschian Uberman develops himself while the comicbook Superman helps to promote the collective even at his own expense. I think that’s a clear view of the subject.

Do you see it otherwise?

Do Nietzschian philosophy and communism ever go together?

5

Do Nietzschian philosophy and communism ever go together?

I think when the communism replaces the economy, ie when we are plenty enough here on the planet, existentiality of individuls would boom. The herdish realm is must tight up together by common material interests and constrains. A person living today worrying about getting a job is likely to be existentially poor even when he turns 60. We have many rich people who appear somewhat personaility-wise rich, too. It’s not a coincidence, but rwealth by no means makes noble or great. In the case of Miceal Jackson, he did not use his leisure and freedom to develop himself other than to pervert himself. Shit like this happens equally often to the rich. Too bad these poeple have got the chance to get rich in the first place, while other people with better potential remain poor and hence cannot fully realise their potential. What an economy does, I think, is to limit people’s personal development and hence involunarily promoting or almost gurantees herdish society.

Many common individualisms play a herdish role in Nietzschean philosophy. Nietzsche’s most enpassioned and challenging attempt is to demostrate and explain so that we can distinguish between fundamental originality/breakthrough/revolution from superfacial originality/breakthroughrevolution. This is the core part of his philosophy that many people simple aren’t equipted to understand, let alone to approve. Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil is a title that the reader must bear in mind at all times, and of course, in the correct definition: it means that you must be prepared to brainwash yourself when reading this book; otherwise it’s gona struck you as an either maddened piece of work, or merely another rebellious nonsense. The reader who assumes as such is stucking deep in the herdish shithole that is human society. I have come to conclude that Nietzsche’s books really are only for the minority within the minority belonging to the minority of society.

I listen to some weird minimalist pieces or outrageous heavey metal, I think they arouse pitty in me: their attempt at individualism is so butterfigured so that their creative impotence is revealed in the most contemptible and lucid way. Only the genius can be originaly stylish. The rest of us spend the next 50 years after the guy’s death trying to catch up. Some of us do it faster, some slower, but we all would like to believe that ourselves are on the rightest track towards a certain accepted and exalted standard. The time whe we all hopelessly realise that we have been somewhat striving vainly and pathetically, but without exactly knowing why this feeling arise - is the time when the newest genius appears and shatters or shakes our clouded ideal of the previous genius, by giving us a brand new standard to run to. If this standard is not prevalent universally then it either means this genius is a fake or this genius is the kind which defies natural human chronicality. Time will tell which one he is. Time has told us that Nietzsche is one of the latter.

My point being? I’m trying to say something that will come across as offensive, even though it’s nothing particular against Adler or anyone else, but: I simply don’t give a shit to a lesser mortal. I have replied according to yours, so allow me this last paragraph that seems to arrogantly warrant no further interest in correspondance, but it’s not my intension, it’s just something off my mind that want to be heard. We all need these moments to stay domestically healthy, that our pide and vanity dogs are feed. “A little vanity is not dangerous, but rather necessarry”.

6

Uni,

I would love to take offense and get all excited, but I left my decoder ring back at headquarters! So, I have no idea what you mean.

Zounds!

7

Interesting. In this way Superman becomes like a modern Cincinattus. A man who, by all means, has the power to take over the country but would rather go back to the farm and visit Ma and Pa.

Which brings up the idea of villains in Superman. Many represent a more Nietzschean way of thinking. The best example is Darseid. He is a being equal in strength to Superman who is the head of a totalitarian regieme. He is the ubermenchen or superman that Nietzche talked about. A strong leader who should be able to do as he wishes with whomever he wants. Because, after all if they deserved power then they would be able to defeat the ruler.

Lex Luthor on the other hand is not as Nietzchean because, like Superman he is kind of an American ideal. But where Superman is like Cincinnatus who defended Rome and went back to his plow Luthor is Julias Caesar who decided to use his influence with the army to become king. He represents the tendancy of power to corrupt, and the darker side of corperate America. He is the opposite of Superman in that he uses the power he has earned for his own gain whereas Superman uses the power he was born with for the benefit of all. I guess he could be construed as slightly Marxist, but mostly Superman is the American middle class ideal.

8

In Adlerian terms I will expalin Lex.

He’s the kind of guy that if Superman wasn’t around most likely would be a hero. However, he views Superman as a person that is blocking his number one status, so he always ends up making an ass of myself over it.

However, if Lex was a cooperator then he could be Superman’s right-hand man and they could probably do a lot of great things for humanity, thus Lex would be very much in the limelight. He can’t see that though because he’s self-centered.

Superman communist or middle-class?

Now I have to assert that Superman is a communist at heart. Everything that Superman does is for free. Even if he did go back to the farm can you imagine him selling produce for like four times the base price? What would he want the money for?

In PA, it used to be the case that if your barn burned down Amish people would mysteriously show up, uninvited, and rebuild the thing for you and then take off. That’s Superman!

9

It’s just more Uniqor Neitzsche ‘I’m so far from understanding his genius you must be farther’ shit.

10

My decoder ring contains many aphorisms, but I’ve found out from Batman that he believes it’s currently in the possession of Brainiac!

I’m not about to stumble into that trap without doing some hard thinking and consultation with the Justice League.

Where Uni fits into all of this, if he does, and I hope not, is your guess.

I’m off!

11

I don’t think that Supes and Lex could ever get along because they are balancing forces to one another. Luthor sees Superman as an alien menace that creates as many problems as he solves. This was the idea behind a recent mini-series called Lex Luthor: Man of Steel.

I think the only reason that I argue with you about Superman being Communist is that that word is so pegoritive to me. He believes in equality and has no use for alot of material possessions that is true. But I think he believes in the democratic ideal that people decide their own fates and no one should dictate what you should believe in. While he may find interest in Marx I don’t think Superman would agree with the implimentation of a Communist government. Especially since those governments who have attempted never got passed the facsist phase from captialism to utopia. I think if anything Superman is not a communist but a utopian. Which may be similar, but not the same.

12

I’m approaching the Lex character from the perspective of an Adlerian analyst and not from the perspective of an author. So, I’m not interested (here) in what role he plays in the narrative.

So, Lex is a guy that has a lot going for him but due to his individual view of life pursues a selfish path and ends up ruining his life and cheating us out of his genius. If we imagine him as a person this is what we would conclude, and tell him if he asked.

Democracy:

In the US we do not have a democracy. In fact, one does not exist.

It’s most likely that if communism is ever done well we’ll have a true democracy.

Star Trek is yet another great example of communism that somehow made it to mass media.

13

Star Trek doesn’t get the philosophical recognition it deserves.

14

Yeah, how did that show not get branded communist in the 60s!

15

Because people were too stupid. Unless the government told them most Americans wouldn’t know what a communist society if it bit them in the ass. They just shouted red scare and the people listened.

16

I must say, I never thought of that!

Good one.

17

Interesting. In other words Luthor is, in the end, not only a selfish, but a self-defeating man because of his obsession with destroying Superman. He’s a member of the fiscal elite, he is one of the most brilliant minds in the DC universe (and that’s sayin’ something) yet he doesn’t look for a cure for cancer he looks for ways to get at Superman. In one story Luthor almost became president just to spite Big Blue.

What I mean by democracy is not that type of government. I know we have a democratic republic in this country. In fact democracies are not even nessisarrily good because those governments tend to make descisions based on a whim. A true democracy tends to support the mob instead of supporting individuals. What I mean by democracy is that sense of the “American Way” of every man created equal, and what we can do for our country. I’m saying that Superman is one of those characters that represents the best of our country’s founding principles.

But one other thing I thought of. Which personae is real? Superman or Clark Kent. I used to say that Superman was the identity that Clark puts on, but I have begun to reavaluate that statement. I thought it was interesting in Kill Bill when Carradine says that Clark Kent is Superman’s commentary on the people of earth. Clark Kent is sort of a clumsy, oaf with glasses. I’m sure this isn’t what he thinks of every single person, but it does make sense. To someone of Supe’s immense power, humanity must seem like scattering oafs trying to get out of the way and the Superman is the only one who can save them. He sees humanity as something that needs protection and guardianship. But Clark Kent works as a newspaper reporter which means that freedom of speech and press is important to him. So he wants to be a protector, but not a overbearing god or tyrant.

18

Now, all this communism talk is good, but I believe this thread is going a little of topic, Superman and other comic book characters. Now, why is it that today more people would be drawn to the Batman characters, instead of the Superman character?

I like the characters with less super powers. That why I’m not a big Superman fan, I just don’t find that all that interesting. Although, I never really gave much thought to the fact of how stong he is, and how much he has to hold back. Back to the question, people are drawn to Batman because he’s just a normal dood who trained a lot to get to where he is.

These characters are flawed and are much easier to relate to than Superman.

19

The Starship ‘Enterprise’…

20

2 quick points

every one knows superman was a perverted peeping tom…

did he ever offer to give anyone lead underwear?

and batman could never be a good role model for the left wingers, bruce wayne was richer than the vatican

-Imp