Was the theory of Ubermensch correct? Is there a natural aristocracy of people that are more in touch with what makes them human that have more capacity to rule well and reduce the ravages of mass ignorance or is this merely a threat to any possible hope of equality of human dignity and a justification for plutocracy of the wealthy?
I realize this may not exactly be Nietzsche’s theory, but that’s my question anyway.
the Ubermensch relates to the concept of someone being “beyond man” i.e. beyond the weaknesses of the average man (lust, greed, jealousy etc) and showing the extent of their will/ability to the “masses”. the notion of beyond appears to claim that it is someone who is that much more than man but is still only a man. this cannot be born into, nor is it determined by any god or fate so therefore it is a “form” which someone must achieve/aim for in their lives. if they do so then they are the more “qualified” to rule over the masses because they have more control in their judgement/humanity.
i don’t know if this has helped you in your question as i believe it is quite a difficult one to answer, could you elaborate more on what you mean by the “justification for plutocracy of the wealthy” as i’am unsure on what you mean by this/how this relates to the notion of the Ubermensch?
What I mean by “justification for plutocracy of the wealthy” is a reiteration of the leftist belief that the rich are rarely rich by their own means, but rather by being born into a conveinent situation or otherwise imprinted by outside forces to suceed. Not by any Overman quality.
Basically I guess my question could be restated as 'are the intellectually/philisophically/pecuniaryily/ect. well endoweled that way as a result of some intangible ability to free themselves of the chains, or are they intellectually/philisophically/pecuniaryily/ect. well endoweled because those very chains have enabled them the chance to become free, through education or diversifying experiance.
Because if a person becomes Ubermenschesque because of circumstances rather than it being a mysteriously accuired quality, and it is still believed to be a mysteriously accuired quality it starts causeing some little problems in places like, oh, say, Germany in 1939. (a can of worms I’m not looking to open up at the moment.) But I’m sure you were well aware of all that.
My question isn’t so much a question of Nietzsche’s beliefs as it is a question of whether or not the bespoke of state of Overmanship is enabled by personal quality or circumstance.
I realize Nietzsche says it is personal quality. The question is whether or not others agree.[/b]
i realize that your skirting the nietzsche question, but he does parody the Overman in later sections of Zarathustra… you might want to look there or maybe someone here can comment about it… i don’t have time right now.
I think overman already exists. Aren’t Jezus and Buddha perfect examples of it?
The overman status is one which can be reached in various ways. But the trick is to get a good notion of what it really is. Beyond man? How far do you mean 
?
Look at it as a fight a good against bad, a proces, which people, life and earth and the whole universe is making. And hey, bad things do happen, and that’s what we have to deal with. Overcoming the human nature. Isn’t our history aiming to make overman possible? From the use of fire, to learning to read and write. From (unnecessarily) industrilization to the enlightment and the renaissance. Next is happening now 
.
A great thing of the nowadays you can have contact with virtually everyone on the the world. In the days of the Greek, you lived with what… 50000 people? Socrates, Plato and Aristoteles where heading for the overman to I bet .
Personal quality can make things happen. Circumstance makes things happen. To make benifit personal qualities, you need to get the circumstances right. When you have trouble making a living, it’s well sure you’re not making enough use of your personal quality.
What do we need for a living? In Nietschze’s days we could see we can produce enough to sustain our living. Making use of personal quality above that it’s a logical next step.
Yeah, I was going to say. I’ve read almost all of Nietzsche’s works and don’t remember him proposing a theory exactly like that one. Oh well.
If Nietschze didn’t propose a theory like that one, what did he propose? You having read almost all of Nietschze’s work, can you tell if my viewpoints are correct?
Equality is an illusion. We all are different. The differences between us gives us various possibilties. Overman will make use of that possibility. But not in the way the former and nowadays elite used to do.
Hit me!
sounds good to me, but i’d add there is definitely a sort of goal in mind that relates to all of them such as becoming all that you can be. i seem to recall a Nietzsche quote that claimed “Dare to become who you are” which is interesting as it could claim to live free as well as to live to the full extent of who you are (like i mentioned above). Like you said the theory/notion of the Overman makes use of that difference/talent/ability and influences/focuses it into becoming a possibility/actuality.
and a many of them live anonymous life’s.
i honestly can’t say i agree with all of that. i’m unfortunately not going to say why i don’t (it’s getting late and i’m tired) but that’s not the ideas i got from reading Nietzsche
i’ll elabourate on why i believe those ideas are incorrect tomorrow probably
I have to disagree, especially with #3, Nietzsche abandoned the overman for eternal recurrence… Outside of “the Nietzschean Defense of Democracy,” where “Homer’s Contest” is related to a Nietzschean idealization of it, his critique of democratic ideals and practices were on point… The whole reason why i think Nietzsche started with the overman in Zarathustra was to give him a little “folly” to work with… consider it in regards to the predictable social darwinism of his time… it’s a freaking parody ahead of his time in my opinion…
This sounds a bit align with the post what started this topic. But weeding out the weak, that sounds quite ugly to me. There would be no people left to rule…
good point. the shepherd needs the sheep unless the sheep somehow develop into shepherds. if that happened then neither of them would ‘need’ each other
Exactly. Nietzsche’s Overman is humanist if you take it to this ultimate conclusion. Society will always be at ends with the individual. So why have society? Because of dependency. The Overman is freed from this dependency entirely, master of its own fate, thus can achieve the existentialist ideal.
Exactly. If you are looking for reasons, eventually you’ll come up with this…
But that’s backwards. A human being doesn’t have to depend on anything more than air, food and water. Dependency exists because of society. There needn’t be any dependency if everyone suddenly stopped interacting. We’d all die in the cycle of one generation and that would be it. Do you recall choosing to be born? Do you recall reading in the instruction manual that you have to be “social” with others upon coming to life?
Society doesn’t exist necessarily. Though social contracts would given in the event of the formation of a society. Other than that, it, society, is just a mass of individuals who develop dependencies after the fact. No one is forced to be social inevitably, only during childhood is human contact necessary.
I like Nietzsche’s concept of the Overman. Although I don’t think it is applied correctly here. It is being used to solve a false dilemma. As I said, any dependency to/with another human being isn’t necessary, so there is no “dependency” to be freed from. In the excitement, a solution is created for this already misunderstood problem, and becomes a gross exaggeration and beautification of Nietzsche’s concept.
If eveyone read Nietzsche’s books and lived by his principles the best he/she could, who, then, would be the herd? It is not by default that the Overman applies to only the few…everybody is doin’ it.
Here’s a paradox for ya’…
There are ten Nietzscheans sitting in a room, and unless they coordinate a team effort to achieve[insert end], they don’t get to eat. But part of this drill is that they have to abide by the Overman principle, break their dependency to the others, yet maintain themselves.
What happens?
They read my post, go sit in the corner, die, and prove my point.
Kidding aside. The ideal of the Overman, as I understand it, doesn’t seem to be as aggressive as what I see as the majority of the academic, and public, opinion. But I’m putting some different stuff to it, raising subtle questions, approaching it differently.
Instead of adopting the Overman and practicing its principles, I am examining what it is to be a human “adopting such principles.” I find that it is largely psychological and pathological. The Overman is an emotional response to existential problems. I’m not saying that this is “bad,” only that its ideals represent a somewhat hostile human condition in a reaction to problems that do not even exist.
There is nothing more to an “existential ideal” than accepting the likelyhood of one’s mortality and eventual meaninglessness. Again, (as I am always misunderstood here), this is not a bad thing.
You’re taking a nihilistic approach, which of course stops the paradox dead, but unfortunately for Nietzsche and I, we’re not nihilists. This is why, as Nietzsche makes clear, his Overman cannot exist today.
Humans ultimately desire far more than this. To quote Sartre: “To be man means to reach toward being God. Or if you prefer, man fundamentally is the desire to be God.”. This is Nietzsche “will to power”, and this is why we live in society rather than all starving to death or going to live in the desert, because it can facilitate this to a degree. However, you can never exercise total will to power in society held back by dependency, hence we need the Overman.
I concede total realization of will to power is impossible, but we should do our best to strive for it.
animals move in packs, for protection and because it has a strong leader in charge of the pack. humans and the notions of society only try to justify this and their other more basic instincts that come up against excess human greed/desire. humans need each other to strive and to live together as each member of the ‘pack’ has relevance to it as a whole. the ubermensch/will to power, to me, is someone who strives to be not just a strong member/leader of the pack but something more then that. “overman” as in beyond man and beyond society as a whole but never turning your back on the ‘pack’ because no matter how you try, you are always a part of it.
that’s my opinion
I’m not lying to you when I say that I’ve read almost all of Nietzsche’s works. But, I don’t think I fully understand everythuing that he (Nietzsche) says. 
i think you could get quite a large group of intelligent/stupid people to read Nietzsche and not one of them would agree with what another thought on him. that’s just Nietzsche for you
btw i find it strange how you (BMW) like Plato and Nietzsche as these two hold very different philosophy’s from one another?