Do you agree with his statements about the superman? Not the rascist kind but the "through suffering excellence"-superman.
I've only read a little nietzche but yeah, adversity is the only thing that truly improves us. You can read about mathematical theory all day, but it won't do you any good until you start applying it to mathematical problems, and problems are adversity.
Yeah, but not only physical circumstances, I'm thinking of spiritual crisis and mental/moral problems that can't be overcome. Did Nietzche ever think about that kind of scenario?
I'm not sure if he did or not, like i said i've only read a little bit of his writing.
Some people experience a disorder like schizophrenia and are completely disabled by it, unable to function meaningfully in the society in which they life, while others are able to find a way to conquer their disease through whatever methods and come out stronger for it.
Well, like >>15702601 mentioned, schizophrenia would be a pretty good example. I remember Freddy said something about "undermensch" as an opposite to the superman, but I never understood if they were a basis for all humans or if the label was assigned to weak humans, in a mental sense.
The core of his philosophy of the superhuman was that being human is being a bridge to something else. Not being able to overcome your humanity makes you a failure. This sounds harsh, but really isn't- you should love every human because he is a bridge. Thats what he said if I remember right.
I think he's in principle correct, but he took the idea a bit too far. Nietzsche was merciless. His writing reflects this. Adversity is valuable but I don't particularly like the life of torment that Nietzsche seems to advocate. And yes, he does advocate torment; he says that "I hope that anybody who is of any concern to me suffers shame, self pity, self contempt, the wretchedness of the vanquished," etc.
Nietzsche's books made me more uncomfortable than almost any other I've ever read. It's clear this guy was grappling with some disturbing thoughts. I think he was a sort of masochist. When I first got into Nietzsche I thought that he was the best thing since sliced bread, but over time, I came to find it a bit too dark.
So we should love every human because they possess the ability to overcome their humanity or because they're incomplete? Didn't his attitude towards weakness change drastically as he got older?
I don't think philosophy should be /lit/-exclusive. In that case everyone that is talking about the teachings of Crowley or the bible should be redirected there as well, since those are also composed of written text.
>So we should love every human because they possess the ability to overcome their humanity or because they're incomplete?
Because they have that spark of superhumanity in them, the divine love. It's what defines humans.
Honestly, I have no idea. Concerning the "Untermensch"/subhuman, adding to >>15702615; the human is the base for the superhuman. Nietzsche talked about the transformation from human to superhuman- a spiritual transformation. I'd guess people with mental/neuronal disorders take the same path, even if it's harder for them. Nietzsche was instrumentalised by nazi germany to support Eugenics and Social Darwinism, I'd guess thats why he gets linked to the notion of something like a "subhuman".
I agree with your thoughts on how he seemed to be all about pain, the guy even advised to stay away from earthly pleasures, but his motivation for that was that enjoying things would steer us away from the path of "ascending", right? And to be fair, his life was pretty shitty, his reasoning around struggle was probably the only thing keeping him sane, I can't imagine what he would feel like if there wasn't some kind of reward for his suffering.
>Implying any of you know what you're talking about when it comes to philosophy
>Implying you're all not just talking about philosophy just so you can try to sound intelligent, as is the case with all of the Tumblr users on /x/ who latch onto things just because "it's philosophy and smart people read that!"
The only thing stopping us from achieving whatever we decide we want to work towards achieving is ourselves. An ubermensch would not let anything stop him from striving towards the heaven but death itself.
An ubermensch will have no regards for human morality as he is free to decide his own morals and virtues.
Neitzsche saw majority of humans as part of a herd. The ubermensch would love them regardless.
Why would he not love them? maybe more the former of what you asked than the latter.
Come to think of it, he generally focused on the things people used as relief, like christianity and that kind of stuff. As for eugenics, he actually loathed anti-semitism, so I can't imagine how mad he would be about his sister publishing his works as nazi-advocating literature.
Then, suppose all of humanity achieves superman-hood. Wouldn't we live in constant anarchy if everyone considered themselves above the law? Wouldn't psychopats be considered superhuman? What ultimately defines a superhuman?
>Wouldn't we live in constant anarchy if everyone considered themselves above the law?
Yes, but the superhuman is a builder, not a destroyer.
>Wouldn't psychopats be considered superhuman?
No, not being able to feel compassion is being as far away from being subhuman as possible.
>What ultimately defines a superhuman?
Well, Nietzsche wrote a good deal about what not defines him. Anyway, "all paths lead to rome". It's enlightenment, I think. Same as in every other religion.
I don't think so because I think once at that level you have a sort of understanding of your place and everyone else's place and people would work together to achieve pretty much whatever they set their minds too.
What ultimately defines a superhuman? Read more of his work for a better understanding than what I can give you but I think it's something along the lines of doing what ever you want without excuses. Growing from suffering.
that doesn't necessarily mean being a complete asshole and killing people. I think being a superman is above all that.
>Neitzsche saw majority of humans as part of a herd. The ubermensch would love them regardless.
Pretty much how I felt when reading Zarathrustra.
From my own subjective view, I feel as if Nietzsche was on the right track and then somewhere along the way insanity kicked in (though I must confess; my knowledge about Nietzsche is fairly limited, I've only read two books by him and some secondary material).
I believe that Carl Gustaf Jung was in a way a philosophical/spiritual successor to Nietzsche, who actually managed to keep his sanity through all of the dangers of divine madness, which destroyed his predecessor.
I disagree. He advised to stay away from anything that could lull you into steering away from the path. Everything that appeases the "ego" I'd say. Like >>15702682 said, that doesn't mean earthly pleasures. Spiritual pleasures would be a better choice of words :^)
Well, to put it in more of a context, Jung did read Nietzsche and I'd say that he in a way shared the fascination by myth (especially the greco-roman).
I remember thinking of many paralels between the philosophies of the two figures. For example, this thread being about ubermensch, great part of Jung's work covers the process of individuation which is pretty much, translated to layman /x/ terms, the 'enlightment'. It is a process of transformation of the mundane, isolated and earth-bound ego (governed by things such as artificial and economical morality) into the perfect Self.
I think that Jung's Self can very easily compare to Nietzsche's Ubermensch, or rather a person that have reached such Self.
Forgot to mention, I think that the prime and princinap example of what I was talking about is Jung's Liber Novus (Red Book) and I very much recommend you read it. It's really a fascinating book.
It isn't suffering itself which people have trouble dealing with but rather the apparent meaningless of why we suffer.
We suffer to overcome and, in turn, become stronger. Whatever doesn't kill us makes us stronger right?
Suffering can also make you crazy so it's a win some lose some deal.
But how much suffering is enough to break a person? And, to use mental problems as an example, aren't we in a way disabling people's ability to progress through heavy medication that numbs the pain?
Not that guy but
>But how much suffering is enough to break a person?
Depends on the person and that persons will.
>And, to use mental problems as an example, aren't we in a way disabling people's ability to progress through heavy medication that numbs the pain?
Depends on their mental problem but I'd say for things like anxiety and depression, possibly yes.
In America prescribing people medication seems like an easy fix to problems that don't need that. Obviously this isn't the case for everyone who is on meds, but I feel big pharma pushes it more than what needs be.
His issue was with what he called the "slave morality"
The west inherited/adopted the values of the bible, written by slaves for slaves from the perspective of slaves.
Nietzsche advocated creating a moral system from the perspective of a winner and/or master.
Eugenics wasnt created by Hitler.
All eugenics is, is selective breeding for desirable traits.
Positive eugenics is the act of encouraging healthy smart people to breed.
Negative Eugenics is killing off traits you dont want.
A eugenic system need not involve killing at all. Like the american eugenic program
The World as Will.
Also this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmwpea93KkA&index=11&list=PLU_Qdn10l-iiAwpMJ4Wgqzox0sRvZ0NCd
I seriously recommend reading "Ego and Archetype" by Edward Edinger. Seriously, one of the best books on jungian analytic theory. Very inciting for a /x/ lurker also as it explores the paths between the psyche, myth, dreams and art.
By Jung per se, I would recommend reading passages from the Red Book, as well as some books such as "Answer to Job" (which is Jung's response to hebrew mentality/theology) or more generally on psychology - "Psychological Types" or the books on the Collective Unconcious.
"Through suffering excellence" is part of the theory of evolution, you cad.
Stop being so afraid of crossing mental boundaries placed by others and start looking at things objectively
Nietzsche can be quite oblique sometimes.
On the one hand he's a stupid cunt because the ONE TIME he went to a brothel, he got herpes. Any theories about "only people who suffer are of value" is pathetic self-validation. He just got wildly unlucky in the STD lotto.
That said, many of his "harsh" values are great; pity is a wasted emotion, the herd mentality is a widespread disease and human transcendence is not something achieved by mere physical evolution or eugenics, but a more psychological understanding.