How to become Ubermensch?

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

Stirner’s burns were pretty bad ass too.

He’s got a fiendish, scoundrelly look to him.

The original Dieter from Sprockets (SNL)
rsz_3p539k.jpg

The resemblance is uncanny.

I wouldn’t trust him with the plastic cutlery, looks like the worst elements of Antifa, PETA and Hitler’s brown shirts combined.

Alright meine Herren, denn… who of yous is an ubermenschennnn???

The Superman is not a man as we know it. He’s not a great or “higher” man. He’s not a Napoleon or Caesar. He’s not some amalgamation of characteristics picked and chosen from great men in history. He’s not even one of Nietzsche’s “creating ones.” He doesn’t necessarily go through the phases in Zarathustra (camel/lion/child).

Everything in TSZ is about creating ones literally sacrificing themselves (like Nietzsche nobly did) for the future of the Superman. There’s something about this sacrificing of noble men that will bring about the Superman. Nietzsche(as far as I know) never says HOW the Superman will come into being.

Where the state ends, the Superman begins… So does that mean that even “good” ethnocentric nationalist governments are only good insofar they get in the way of unchecked globalism (which could potentially end the possibly for the Superman to come into being (Nietzsche’s big fear with the Last Man)

May be, on the contrary, the more, the merrier. That is, of it really is contrary!