How to become Ubermensch?

The aim is: overcoming morality (which is the sublimation of values, a set of sublimated values) in order to arrive at a direct consciousness of values.

One must be healthy like a lion in order to apprehend ones values directly, without the intermediary of morality.

That’s been my success in philosophy. To de-sublimate values. I.e. to overcome morality.

In Gulag a fourteen year old boy the truth about the camps to Gorky and he was shot on the same day
So for Solzhenitsyn he was a useful tool for the state who told the world what they wanted him to say

The single biggest cause of the Second World War was not Adolf Hitler but the Treaty Of Versailles
No sooner had the ink on it dried than Germany started to rearm and the British and French just let it happen

They had one chance to stop Hitler in I936 when he marched into the Rhineland and once again they let it happen
The French were looking to the British but the British were not interested and from then on he knew he had them
This was the only time that he was truly worried before the war because he did not know what their response would be

There is of course a vast abyss between the political effect of literature and its literary value. I do not judge art in the moral sense. Though its interesting to know this story.
Gorky conveys the reality of the rise of Communism very hauntingly. I like haunting stories of changing worlds. And rarely was there a greater world-change than at the outset of Russian Communism.
I doubt there will ever be a political situation of greater consequence - before it happened, the world was a premodern, fragmented tapestry of separate realms, and when it was done with, the world had been brought together in a massive political web.

The overthrow of the bourgeoisie was advocated in Das Kapital and was then brutally put into practice by both Lenin and Stalin
Advocates of communism may try to separate the political and social and economic aspect from the personalities of its leaders
But the two factors cannot be treated as entirely separate in my opinion

Solzhenitsyn quotes a figure of 66 million deaths under communist rule from between I9I7 to I953
Under Mao there were 60 million dead and Pol Pot murdered I million of his countrymen and women
That last figure seems insignificant by comparsison but Cambodia only had a population of 5 million

So that is I27 million dead under direct communist rule between I9I7 to I979
For me it makes communism effectively redundant as a political philosophy

Furthermore the desire to render everyone entirely equal by giving all power to the state removes any notion of aspiration that there might be
Capitalism is not a perfect system by any means but it does at least offer the possibility for self improvement if one actually works hard enough

quora.com/Is-it-true-that-c … chtenstein

I would make a distinction between a system that deliberately kills it citizens and one that only inadvertently kills them
No system is perfect but I would much rather live in a capitalist society than a communist one and so would most people

antithesis. on the comparison of stirner and nietzsche. stirner was no where near as popular and widely read as nietzsche… but the moment you read stirner, you realize that he was nietzsche before nietzsche was nietzsche. ideas so similar it is suspected by many that N had read S, although there’s no definitive proof. some even go so far as to say he plagiarized him.

but what you find once you strip all the romantic garnishing away from the ubermench is striner’s voluntary egoist and ‘unique one’. for stirner the highest type would be anarchistic and oppose any kind of formation of ‘state’… for nietzsche the highest type - a description that often changed throughout his writing - was originally the master statesman, the establisher of great states, etc. but if you follow nietzsche’s thoughts you find him eventually appear to lose both hope and interest in politics and redefine the ubermensch to be independent of his original master/slave morality; the overman was no longer concerned with ‘leading’ and instead sought to emancipate himself from the dirty business of politics, so to speak. he most likely felt that statecraft would inevitably lead to fascism and nationalism - which he despised - but maintained the idea that the higher type still must not be reduced to the simple citizen. hence, he wouldn’t lead or follow. now you see here a big ass circle in the development of the idea… one that ends up back at stirner’s formula.

so what i see is a unique relationship between these two beasts. nietzsche was an undeniably smarter and more elaborate thinker/writer, but because of this complexity he lacked the sinewy strength and solidness that stirner had. perhaps because stirner was simpler and much more skeptical of philosophical thinking in general, he wasn’t able to complicate the concept of the higher type as nietzsche did. in the end, when nietzsche arrived back at stirner, we can only ask ‘you had to do it the hard way, didn’t ya, fritz?’

what really happened was N refused to embrace nihilism (which he was consciously trying to avoid), while stirner reveled in it. the natural consequence of N’s refusal, while also acknowledging the complete loss of objective values in the world, was to try and do the impossible; replace those lost values with new, subjective values to be declared law and sanctioned by the master, ubermensch type, for the purposes of elevating mankind to new heights. in a word, creating and forcing new objective values onto the world.

stirner, on the other hand, was a bit more aware of the impossibility/absurdity of such a project in a world governed by ubiquitous class conflict… and in a sense he saw, before marx and engels, the fundamental problem that had to be resolved before any such nietzschean project could be realized. nietzsche was naive enough to believe such a revolution of supreme politics by the hand of the masters could be possible in such an environment. stirner wuz like ‘umm… no. it’ll never happen, B.’

somewhere in the halls of ILP i did a post where i made the critical connection between what i called the beginning and end of the ethical spectrum of man… on one end you have stirner, on the other marx and engels. and between them, the entire course as well as the final solution was plotted. a resolution that if not reached… that is to say, doesn’t resolve the stirner problem of egoism… would never facilitate a truly ethical world based on a civil contract. and every possible ‘philosophical position’ meanwhile falls somewhere between these two extremes. one is either essentially an anarchist, or one is essentially a marxist. any ideology short of the principles and practices of marxism cannot substantiate a workable system of ethics that all are obligated to observe, uphold and defend. hence, as stirner called it, the ‘state’ is only an abstraction and there exist no ‘men’, only individuals.

this fact alone is interesting, but not as interesting as the lengths those opposed to marxism will go to pretend there is, or even can be, a working social contract in a society where the means of production are not democratically owned by the producers themselves. it’s a seemingly simple thing to note and one asks ‘how could something so trivial be such an important thing to note’, yes. it’s the ramifications and consequences of this arrangement (in a capitalism) that extend so far into socio-political-economic life as to permeate every aspect of civil existence itself. that’s why it’s a big deal, and that’s why the anarchist doesn’t take society seriously until this problem is resolved. western capitalism is a non-starter for the social contract.

Promethean; I dunno bruh, I dunno.
I don’t think Nietzsche said exactly what Stirner said, but just more elaborately.
Both of them weren’t ethical nihilists, rather they were ethical subjectivists, sentimentalists, like Davie Hume.
But whereas Stirner’s subjective sentimentalism was more egalitarian; many could be liberated from ethical objectivism, Nietzsche’s was more elitist; only a few could be liberated.
Stirner was more, up in the air, about what sorts of precarious unions egoists would form, nondescript, whereas Nietzsche was more down to earth, descript; unions of egoist masters ruling over objectivist slaves, either that and/or Bohemian egoist artist poet philosophers.

Ill keep this quote short, so you morons could, hypothetically, attempt to read it without fainting.

I think fixed is too fixated on Nietzsche’s Dionysian side and not enough on his Apollonian, because he himself is Dionysian.

All this means is just that the uncompartmentalized and unconceptualized self is greater and more than the compartmentalized and conceptualized self (ego).
It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have some sense of self, in contradistinction to otherness, and desire to rule over otherness, if we’re able and so inclined.

Oh snap… I feel a quote-battle between Max and Fritz coming on.

I’m tryna tell y’all Max done did all that shit already.

Well hell, Im not going to argue this.

Surely it is required of the Beyondman that he rules over mankind. But my, and Nietzsche’s point here is that the ego isn’t going to cut it.

Ive been having a disagreement with Parodites for a long time about Nietzsche - he take the Will to Power theory as a phenomenology, I take it as a thinking method. A thinking method which allows to overcome the petty conceptuality of “A” = “A” and makes inequality the basis for thought. My self valuing logic is based on this. It is a logic of conquest, where we can conceptualize the self without tying it down, reducing it to the past.

N introduced a Philosophy of the Future. We reason from the future, not toward it. We reason from the future so that we control it before others get there.

Nietzsche did ethics differently than our Judeo-Christian, liberal-social tradition, in fact he stood that tradition on its head, but he wasn’t an ethical nihilist, he didn’t do away with ethics altogether, he was an elitistic and individualistic ethical subjectivist.
He believed objectively strong, smart, healthy people would tend to subjectively esteem strong, smart, healthy people, attitudes and behaviors both in others and themselves, as well as those with biopsychological potential to develop themselves into such people.
He was sort of a proto-social Darwinist.

His ethical thinking had both aretaic and consequentialist components.

Not all ethical subjectivists are going to think and feel alike about ethical matters, just as not all ethical objectivists do.

N was nuanced, his ethics were broad, dynamic and intricate, but I don’t think I’m going out on a limb by saying the gist of his work is elitist.
And, ‘higher civilizations’?
That sounds like more ethicizing from N.
I say ethicizing rather than moralizing because I think of ethics as more of an introspective and philosophical approach to valuation N took than the usual impersonal, theistic, objectivist or cultural relativist approach.

Yea, you’ve presented it in black & white terms, but I, and N, prefer to think of things in degrees, where some individuals and civilizations at least came closer to embodying his ideals than others.

N was a white supremacist who’s been appropriated by liberal-socialists because he’s hip.
While Italian Fascism and German Nazism may’ve been too crude, collectivist and egalitarian for his tastes, as they were too crude for the likes of individualistic elitists like Julius Evola, still clearly they came closer to meeting his ideals than our Judeo-Christian, liberal-social democracies do.

You can be a hip elitist, or a square equalist, the left doesn’t have a monopoly on hipness.

N was the archetypal proto-Nipster.

N and Evola did for the right what Sartre and Camus did for the left.

Stirner and Novatore were hipper still, they didn’t quite fit into either camp, left or right.

You’re throwing out pretty random responses here man. Yes, clearly N is speaking to elites. Elites who don’t hold moralities.

Ethics isn’t the same as morality.

.
rsz_3ozecz.jpg