How to become Ubermensch?

[Fixed Cross]

Where the fuc is the OP now.

I'm not into rap, I mostly listen to rock from the 80s, 90s and 00s, a bit of classical, country, electronic and experimental.
Mainstream music at least has never been worse, rock is all but dead, and rap, r&b, pop and country qualitatively peaked decades ago.
It's funny we have greater access to music now than ever before in unrevised history, but the trade off is most of what we produce today is garbage.

Its not about the rap itself, what I referred to 2pac for, its not that I imagine N would have loved his music. Its the awareness of tragic pathos with which he lived - the directness of his life.

Music I like is e.g. Bachs non Christian stuff, some hard dance music, Arab fuck music, Bizet, my own music, some specific popular songs which I've long exhausted, and some Coltrane, some other properly Dionysiac jazz, and just, here and there something turns up that I like. But I hardly ever listen to music anymore.

All this, rap music, Tupac too, is what I see as belonging to a long process of physiological awakening to a more direct state, which Nietzsche describes in some of the quotes I gave earlier, and which is going to have to be part of human evolution. In that vein I see the whole of American music. An awakening to a more physiologically integrated state, and all drug (ab)use that accompanies the music industry is simply part of the chemical process that mankind and his evolution are. Its all an experiment.

America too peaked decades ago, it's in decline now, it isn't going anywhere but down.
If it doesn't take the rest of the world with it on its way down, we will see Asia, particularly China supersede it, both materially, militarily, and perhaps even culturally.
At the very least it'll be a more multipolar world, America will have to share dominancy.

At the least, indeed.
More than that Im not willing to speculate.
Its like Bergson says now. The future isn't reducible to the present.

But yesterday I felt like making a point about the distances that yet have to be crossed before we have something like Dionysos in human form. Since Dionysos cant be seen separately of music and intoxication its inevitable that we consider the most intoxicating musical artists. And by that I mean, those who simply have the greatest intoxicating effect on the People. Not so much on me. Dionysos was hardly intoxicating only the philosophers.

Dionysus has always been with us, all the great artists were manifestations of him, or rather Dionysus was a manifestation of them.

Parts of him anyway and not just artists.
But the full fledged Dionysos has yet to appear - as a Nietzschean I have rather high standards for what human I would grant the title "Dionysos".

I must say though that in as far as boldness of world-shaping actions are concerned, Donald Trump is supreme.

Trump is an ubermensch, an elitist, not a right (libertarian), nor a leftwing (socialist) egalitarian, altho he makes a lot of promises to the people, he rarely delivers.
He's rich, powerful, pretty smart, in an unrefined sort of way, but not very sentient, I don't think.

I think he is so smart as to be able to appear not very sentient and at the same time completely reshape world-politics.
What he has done internationally is astonishing.
He has basically cleaned up all the hypocritical the filthiness of the American Empire. Unbelievable.

He's not a globalist, nor a nationalist, a real globalist would grant amnesty and citizenship to most illegals, a real nationalist would close the borders, but he wants to keep the borders open, without granting amnesty and citizenship, for the cheap labor.
A real globalist would push for world government, either by conquest or consent, a real nationalist would be noninterventionist, but Trump wants to continue playing war games.

No, he is absolutely not paying any games. He has only made very few, and all deeply serious and efficient acts of war.
All previous American presidents have been utter rotten shit when it comes to war.
Causing millions of unnecessary deaths and dozens of ruined states with absolutely no benefit for anyone at all except some weapon manufacturers and oil producers.
Trump is so great it is truly hard to find a parallel.
He is alike Alexander the Great in greatness at war.

From "AsianGirlsLoveTrump" (the existence of this monicker says enough) : https://www.reddit.com/r/HillaryForPris ... rump_wins/

Hillary's not going to prison.
The Trumps, Clintons and Bushs are all in cahoots with the rest of the elite.

Not cahoots, negotiations.
Power works that way.
Only the very weak and naive expect it to be different.

Praise Kek.
The New Paganism is yet very very very young.

If paganism means elitism, and polytheism, it never really went away, just occulted itself, first masquerading as Abrahamism, then as right and leftwing egalitarianism.

All that is included. But I said the new paganism.

I am a religious fundamentalist of Odin. I do not relativize or anthropomorphize my Gods, I take them more literally than anything except my kin.

THOR governs this here river bend.

[Arcturus Descending]

Could one say that Martin Luther King and Mohammed Ali were ubermensches?


The below hyperlink might bring everyone in here back down to Earth. lol


https://simplicable.com/new/ubermensch

Perhaps the real ones would be ones who were not out there trying to be ones and who would never recognize themselves as being ones or being great.
One who constantly speaks negatively in response to some insult or other who is not capable of rising above it all, and who self-aggrandizes and stretches the truth or does not speak it is certainly no ubermensch.

[iambiguous]

Could one say that Martin Luther King and Mohammed Ali were ubermensches?

Here of course comes the part where distinctions are made by some between means and ends. There are men who rise above the "herd" and become "famous". They stand out in the history books as having accomplished this or that...so as to have a powerful influence on others. Thousands [sometimes millions] may have a deep respect for the behaviors that they chose in any particular context.

But then the behaviors themselves come under scrutiny in order to probe, to determine, to assess the extent to which these are behaviors that a true Uberman ought to pursue.

What difference does it make if many deem you to be a powerful figure if you are not in tandem with the right cause?

Ultimately, rising above the rest means nothing to the ubermen if it is not in sync with their own objectivist values.

[Fixed Cross]

Could one say that Martin Luther King and Mohammed Ali were ubermensches?

You could try to make that argument, could be interesting. Go for it.

The below hyperlink might bring everyone in here back down to Earth. lol

Ns point is that man never reached Earth.

https://simplicable.com/new/ubermensch

It's spelled wrong though, and the definition given has not much in common with what N wrote.
N never suggested the Uebermensch is some way of life. He speaks of a next stage in evolution.
He says that man is to Uebermensch what ape is to man: a laughing stock. Thats literally what he says.


We don't have to use the concept of Superman if we want to achieve personal development. I don't think its a good idea to approach the concept this way. Its too harsh of a concept.

[Fixed Cross]

For personal development, you should not try to use Nietzsche. Nietzsche isn't helpful, he isn't trying to help individuals. At all. He is trying to push the whole of society into a certain direction and he is calling on people, a specific types which hear his call, to advance this cause. He is, in great part, driven by disgust. Disgust with weakness.

Nietzsche is bad medicine for anyone who is not willing to dive into disgust and weakness and consume all of it to transform it. Nietzsche has you bite the head of the black adder. And he does not offer peace of mind as a result. He merely offers evolution in the broad, in-human sense. Super-human is also in-human.

For human personal development, a person would do well to leave Nietzsche out of it. For life-improvement, do not attempt to think everything through. The cat may eat part of the rose but will shun the heart. It is too bitter.

[Antithesis]

Could one say that Martin Luther King and Mohammed Ali were ubermensches?


The below hyperlink might bring everyone in here back down to Earth. lol


https://simplicable.com/new/ubermensch

Perhaps the real ones would be ones who were not out there trying to be ones and who would never recognize themselves as being ones or being great.
One who constantly speaks negatively in response to some insult or other who is not capable of rising above it all, and who self-aggrandizes and stretches the truth or does not speak it is certainly no ubermensch.

While MLK and Mohammad Ali were great men, they were egalitarians, champions of the downtrodden.
Ubermensch are elitists.
Ubermensch can be any race.
While Nietzsche acknowledged the importance of race, that aggregate neuropsychological differences between the races existed, he was still an individualist first and foremost.

[Fixed Cross]

Yeah true. These two dudes were way too friendly and concerned, Moral.

Nietzssche makes the point about twenty thousand times if I counted correctly that he hates nothing more than moral considerations.

By the way I found this video called Gruesome Uebermensch.

[Antithesis]

There are different forms of morality.
Elitism (master morality) and its counterpart egalitarianism (slave morality) are the two forms Nietzsche was most preoccupied with.
Elitism can be every bit as moral as egalitarianism.

Elitists believe the strong have more value than the weak, that they should have more rights than the weak, if the weak should have any at all.
Master morality isn't libertarianism, nor socialism.
Master morality is serfdom, where it's very hard for the socioeconomically poor to climb the socioeconomic ladder, and very hard for the socioeconomically rich to fall down.

Master morality is totally antithetical to Americanism, in theory.
In practice, they're quite compatible, increasingly so.

The ubermensch can be concerned with the welfare of the untermensch, just as men can be concerned with the welfare of dogs, but the ubermensch do not believe the untermensch are their equals, that the untermensch should be afforded as many sociopolitical and economic rights as the ubermensch.
Nietzsche was anti-democracy, in both its classical liberal, and social forms.

[promethean75]

'pends on which period of nietzsche's writing we talkin bout. the dude defined the overman in so many different ways it's impossible to put a finger on exactly what he meant summa summarum. yeah i know some latin. that is latin, right?

whatever. listen though. first we hear the overman is the master of the earf... the whole legislator philosopher king thing. then we hear he's an indifferent artist and free-spirit above politics. then we hear he sure as shit wouldn't be a bourgeois 'shop keeper'. then we hear he neither leads nor follows but walks in solitude on icy mountains... which is a very unwise thing to do alone because what happens if you slip and twist your ankle or something. then we hear he's dionysus personified... which gives us a kind of jim morrison impression... but we're pretty sure N would think morrison was a stoned-out idiot who was good at writing poetry at best. so that can't be it.

this is why there's a new trend in nietzsche interpretation that suggests an affinity between the overman and the anarchist. but you'll be like 'no nietzsche was clearly disdainful about anarchists'... and then i'll be like 'he meant the downtrodden rabble involved in the worker's revolts... not the aristocratic novatorean nihilist vagabonds in love with life, etc.' N simply adored scoundrels cuz he knews what's up. there would come a time when real overmen no longer took the business of politics seriously and spent their days wandering the earf.

[Antithesis]

Nietzsche valued great men.
They could be great architects, engineers, artists, athletes, industrialists, philosophers, scientists or statesmen.
Great men are men who bring great value to themselves and others, primarily other great men like themselves, great men aren't emancipators of small men.
They would either be in favor of maintaining and rising within old hierarchies, or erecting new, better ones, not overturning all hierarchy.
For Nietzsche, ubermensch are not Buddhachrists, Robin Hoods, Spartacuses, anarchists, democrats, classical liberals or socialists.

[Antithesis]

Ubermensch could be apolitical, and asocial, but insofar as they were political, they'd favor some form of aristocracy or autocracy, and insofar as they were social, they'd surround themselves with other great men and women like themselves.

[Antithesis]

Society and government would primarily serve the interests of great people, the smartest, strongest, healthiest, wealthiest, most beautiful and ethical people.
Here I say ethical rather than moral, because for N, insofar as the strongman values others, or themselves for that matter, they do so according to their nature, their perceptions and sentiments.
It's not something they try to artificially impose upon themselves externally, for fear of transgressing some deity or 'objective moral'.
Of course the wealthiest aren't always the smartest and so on, but they tend to be.
The amount of sociopolitical power and privilege a person is afforded would be determined by a multitude of factors, rather than a single factor like wealth or ancestry/birth, and by a multitude of powerful and privileged people, rather than a single person.

[Antithesis]

But yea, it's an aristocratic philosophy, not anarchy, or 1 man = 1 vote.
Of course in the real world, 1 man doesn't = 1 vote anyway, but it's convenient for our elite we go on believing that 1 man = 1 vote anyway.

[promethean75]

i'd probably have to argue that fritz got the concept wrong and was a little over-romantic about it, though. lotta circumstantial bias and prejudice there dictating how he was going to conceive it. consider the indecisive political state of europe during the 19th century. lotta religious and political turbulence there, so naturally this 'ideal man' would be something that was able to rise above and transcend all of that particular mess. the ubermensch then becomes something circumstantial, not eternal.

now if you want an eternally applicable image of the ubermensch, you'd look to max stirner's individual-egoist. this 'ideal' is universally solid under any circumstances. the cool thing about max's ideal is that it allows for altruistic ends, provided that these end are not sought involuntarily... that is, under the false impression that they should be sought as causes in themselves rather than simply as something that pleases the egoist. this way a selfish sonofabitch can be moral and still avoid all the ideological spooks. the thing with fritz wuz that he was just another ideologue, albeit a radically new kind. but a spook is a spook man. duddint matter how you dress it up.

[promethean75]

the cool thing about max's ideal is that it allows for altruistic ends, provided that these end are not sought involuntarily... that is, under the false impression that they should be sought as causes in themselves rather than simply as something that pleases the egoist.

and there's the connection i made earlier between the anarchist and the ubermensch. when the amoralist's egoistic action results in something revolutionarily moral, a paradox emerges within the original formula for the overman and you get an exception to the rule. previously it was decided that the overman would make a concerted effort to remain amoral... or of the 'master' morality, which when contrasted to the normative ethics amounts to the same thing in practice. he must, in principle, keep his distance and do nothing for the well being of the masses unless it's accidental. that is to say, he has to keep in mind that distinction he's made between his morality and the herd's morality and be careful not to 'step in it'. but in making this conscientious effort he becomes an 'objectivist' and is therefore no different in form than the herd. he becomes the amoral moralist and an oxymoron. next thing you know the criteria for upholding the standards he has for himself becomes a matter of determining whether or not what he does benefits the herd he distinguishes himself from. now he's created a 'cause' he sacrifices himself for and as such becomes the involuntary egoist; he loses himself momentarily so that he may produce for himself something to 'stand by' to recapture his identity... and he does this to avoid the 'nothing' that he ultimately is. on the other hand, the stirnerite egoist does not acknowledge any spook such as 'master/slave morality' in the first place, and so doesn't have a predisposed standard he holds himself answerable to. rather he does what please him only, and if this incidentally favors the herd, it is of no consequence to him. the stirnerite violates no forumla and is no objectivist like those philosophers who use such things as 'social darwinism' to not only justify their elitism but declare it necessary.

that's some MAXimum psychoanalysis for ya. the shit cuts deep, bro. what if all overmen prior to this post were just scared leetle girls?

[Fixed Cross]

There are different forms of morality.
Elitism (master morality) and its counterpart egalitarianism (slave morality) are the two forms Nietzsche was most preoccupied with.
Elitism can be every bit as moral as egalitarianism.

Elitists believe the strong have more value than the weak, that they should have more rights than the weak, if the weak should have any at all.
Master morality isn't libertarianism, nor socialism.
Master morality is serfdom, where it's very hard for the socioeconomically poor to climb the socioeconomic ladder, and very hard for the socioeconomically rich to fall down.

Master morality is totally antithetical to Americanism, in theory.
In practice, they're quite compatible, increasingly so.

The ubermensch can be concerned with the welfare of the untermensch, just as men can be concerned with the welfare of dogs, but the ubermensch do not believe the untermensch are their equals, that the untermensch should be afforded as many sociopolitical and economic rights as the ubermensch.
Nietzsche was anti-democracy, in both its classical liberal, and social forms.

Reminder, Untermensch is not a Nietzsche concept. Nazis came up with that.

Mensch, for Nietzsche, was low enough.

N said remarkably little about America but it is safe to say that the idea of "self-evident rights" for humans amongst each other is something he would have laughed very hard at. As do I.

Its funny how you can lay waste to an entirely noble population of warriors and enslave people and then claim "self-evident rights" - complete hypocrisy.

[Antithesis]

Stirner and Nietzsche, S&N were similar, in that they both weren't afraid of moral gods, ghosts or ectoplasm, yet they didn't do away with sociability, creativity for its own sake, or altruism altogether, only the contrived kind, instead they placed sociability, creativity and altruism in the realm of the subjective, of perception and sentiment, like David Hume did.

Where they differed is in what sort of perceptions and sentiments they had.
S's were more egalitarian, he believed many, most or all at some point in the future could liberate themselves from belief in gods and objective morality, whereas N's were more elitist, he believed only the elite could.
S didn't divide the world into two camps, the uber and the unter, N did.
Both S and N spoke of unions of egoists in their own way, but S was open to all sorts of nonbinding unions, whereas Nietzsche was only interested in the uber uniting to further their interests, and rule the unter.

So two people can do away with moral monsters, boogeymen, but still think and feel very differently about the world and the people who inhabit it.
It'd be interesting to compile all the great ethical subjectivists, from about Hume onward, to see how their ethical subjectivism manifested differently.

[Fixed Cross]

the cool thing about max's ideal is that it allows for altruistic ends, provided that these end are not sought involuntarily... that is, under the false impression that they should be sought as causes in themselves rather than simply as something that pleases the egoist.

and there's the connection i made earlier between the anarchist and the ubermensch. when the amoralist's egoistic action results in something revolutionarily moral, a paradox emerges within the original formula for the overman and you get an exception to the rule. previously it was decided that the overman would make a concerted effort to remain amoral... or of the 'master' morality, which when contrasted to the normative ethics amounts to the same thing in practice. he must, in principle, keep his distance and do nothing for the well being of the masses unless it's accidental.

Did he not rather say the higher man would employ the "educated masses" (cosmopolitans middle class) to shape the base of a pyramid?
This distance is not a hermit-like distance, even though still a hygiene, but definitely not a complete separation.

That is to say, the normal humans would remain unaware of the existence of the Uebermensch.

Dudes can we please spell it right it is jarring.

Ue is U-umlaut.

that is to say, he has to keep in mind that distinction he's made between his morality and the herd's morality and be careful not to 'step in it'. but in making this conscientious effort he becomes an 'objectivist' and is therefore no different

I think youre not taking this from N directly.
What he always asks about a taste, which separates types of people. Not morals.

Morals are simply bad taste.

next thing you know the criteria for upholding the standards he has for himself becomes a matter of determining whether or not what he does benefits the herd he distinguishes himself from. now he's created a 'cause' he sacrifices himself for and as such becomes the involuntary egoist; he loses himself momentarily so that he may produce for himself something to 'stand by' to recapture his identity... and he does this to avoid the 'nothing' that he ultimately is.

I don't see N in this.
Pls quote.

on the other hand, the stirnerite egoist does not acknowledge any spook such as 'master/slave morality' in the first place, and so doesn't have a predisposed standard he holds himself answerable to. rather he does what please him only, and if this incidentally favors the herd, it is of no consequence to him. the stirnerite violates no forumla and is no objectivist like those philosophers who use such things as 'social darwinism' to not only justify their elitism but declare it necessary.

N was no fan of Darwin though, he writes contemptuously of him.

[Fixed Cross]

Stirner and Nietzsche, S&N were similar, in that they both weren't afraid of moral gods, ghosts or ectoplasm,

Not afraid, but N completely rejected morality and moral gods.

Nietzsche was against all morality, he never advocated Master Morality. He just said it existed.

260. In a tour through the many finer and coarser moralities which have hitherto prevailed or still prevail on the earth, I found certain traits recurring regularly together, and connected with one another, until finally two primary types revealed themselves to me, and a radical distinction was brought to light. There is MASTER-MORALITY and SLAVE-MORALITY,—I would at once add, however, that in all higher and mixed civilizations, there are also attempts at the reconciliation of the two moralities, but one finds still oftener the confusion and mutual misunderstanding of them, indeed sometimes their close juxtaposition—even in the same man, within one soul.

All morality is anti-Nietzschean.

[Fixed Cross]

Nietzsche valued great men.
They could be great architects, engineers, artists, athletes, industrialists, philosophers, scientists or statesmen.
Great men are men who bring great value to themselves and others, primarily other great men like themselves, great men aren't emancipators of small men.
They would either be in favor of maintaining and rising within old hierarchies, or erecting new, better ones, not overturning all hierarchy.
For Nietzsche, ubermensch are not Buddhachrists, Robin Hoods, Spartacuses, anarchists, democrats, classical liberals or socialists.

No more important point in N than that men, up to and at least 100 years beyond him, had not been great enough.
Not even Napoleon had his respect, because of the cause he led.

The concept of Uebermensch, I don't know what's so difficult to understand about this. (lol yeah of course I do but it's mean) is the conceptualization of mankind as being by definition insufficient to please his tastes.

All this about already existing Uebermenschen is from other sources than Nietzsche.

[Fixed Cross]

Am I the only one who understands the concept of sourcing, quoting, referring - am I the only one who is not content to just blindly imagine things?

[Fixed Cross]

Perhaps Im the only one who has read Nietzsche to any serious extent.

How elitist of me.

But really. Only the elite of this planet can endure reading Nietzsche. That's the whole point. His writing is a selecting mechanism.

He exudes this whole taste for rank so very utterly that one must have quite a strong stomach.

[Fixed Cross]

In this sense, America as being a mechanism for rank-creating, did, I think, have his respect.

Naturally he wasn't so silly as to believe men have intrinsic rights, he wasn't as silly as to disregard reality of how men interact, nor did he value men in particular as more ontologically significant than animals, so he did not value the base narrative of the USA, but he must have valued the massiveness of its power machinations.

And since he considered overcoming and self-overcoming as a crucial aspect of noble nature, he would definitely have had some pleasure in the path to power of the African gene pool. He certainly wasn't racist.

[Fixed Cross]

What he loathed about the US type base narrative is the whining demands that all men are given rights without any of their own efforts.
Still, since he valued the Noble Lie, he would have respected the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as - noble lies. Meaning statements which serve a deeper purpose than to convey some moral truth.

[Fixed Cross]

The difference between truth and reality.