Where, in Nietzsche, do you read that going "beyond Man" is the creation of a new species? — Valentinus
Nietzsche, on his works, never fully explained the concept of "Übermensch". He left it open to interpretations, because neither he, as a human to be surpassed, could fully comprehend it. — Gus Lamarch
"Last Man" is the second concept developed on the same book, and it is the antithesis of his superior, more evolved being, the Übermensch. According to Nietzsche, the last man is the goal that modern society and Western civilization have apparently set for themselves, with lives of pacifism and comfortableness, with no more distinction between ruler and ruled, strong over weak or supreme over the mediocre. Social conflict and challenges are minimized and every individual lives equally and in "superficial" harmony.
With characteristics like "equality", acceptance of the status quo, decadece, hedonism, comfortableness, nihilism, etc. I can only say, with regret, that we are going straightfoward towards the latter. — Gus Lamarch
I love Nietzsche, but let's add to this picture. What do we do with our modern comfort? We watch TV and movies full of violence and drama. We have our cake and eat it too. And even Nietzsche did this. When was he violent?The last man might just be a reader of Nietzsche who still obeys the traffic lights and pays taxes. Or are we to read Nietzsche as a thug? — Eee
It's hard if not impossible to create new values. — Eee
es, even Nietzsche did this, and he confirmed, but his point was that to feel comfortable with it, and not attempt to change, is the greatest error that humanity ever did. Life is tragic, tough, but to not fight back, and feel that what you did was worth living, could only be the will of the "Last Man". — Gus Lamarch
I am not a man, I am dynamite. And with it all there is nought of the founder of a religion in me. Religions are matters for the mob; after coming in contact with a religious man, I always feel that I must wash my hands.... I require no "believers," it is my opinion that I am too full of malice to believe even in myself; I never address myself to masses. I am horribly frightened that one day I shall be pronounced "holy." You will understand why I publish this book beforehand—it is to prevent people from wronging me. I refuse to be a saint; I would rather be a clown. Maybe I am a clown. — Nietzsche
I take it that you like his mystic side more. — Eee
All I can say is examine the vagueness of your mystic song. — Eee
I take it that you like his mystic side more. All I can say is examine the vagueness of your mystic song. What exactly are you proposing? From my point of view, you are high on abstractions, high on the indeterminate promise of the superman. — Eee
And what isn't abstract? — Gus Lamarch
The concept of Overman is molded by my mind, to the most functional notion for me. If the Superman is inderteminate, make it the best concept you can, for yourself. — Gus Lamarch
We are already consumers who are free to dream our own dreams. — Eee
You're free to dream what society says you can. — Gus Lamarch
Liberty in this case doesn't exist, but then we are arriving on my philosophical thought, and that's not what this discussion is about. — Gus Lamarch
My comments seem on topic. Though I'll leave you alone if you resent criticism. If you push all criticism away, though, you are wasting the forum. And people will just tune you out as someone lost in a dream he refuses to clarify or modify. — Eee
the last man is the goal that modern society and Western civilization have apparently set for themselves, with lives of pacifism and comfortableness, with no more distinction between ruler and ruled, strong over weak or supreme over the mediocre. Social conflict and challenges are minimized and every individual lives equally and in "superficial" harmony. — Gus Lamarch
I can only say, with regret, that we are going straightfoward towards the latter. — Gus Lamarch
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/preface.htmHitherto men have constantly made up for themselves false conceptions about themselves, about what they are and what they ought to be. They have arranged their relationships according to their ideas of God, of normal man, etc. The phantoms of their brains have got out of their hands. They, the creators, have bowed down before their creations. Let us liberate them from the chimeras, the ideas, dogmas, imaginary beings under the yoke of which they are pining away. Let us revolt against the rule of thoughts. Let us teach men, says one, to exchange these imaginations for thoughts which correspond to the essence of man; says the second, to take up a critical attitude to them; says the third, to knock them out of their heads; and -- existing reality will collapse.
These innocent and childlike fancies are the kernel of the modern Young-Hegelian philosophy, which not only is received by the German public with horror and awe, but is announced by our philosophic heroes with the solemn consciousness of its cataclysmic dangerousness and criminal ruthlessness. The first volume of the present publication has the aim of uncloaking these sheep, who take themselves and are taken for wolves; of showing how their bleating merely imitates in a philosophic form the conceptions of the German middle class; how the boasting of these philosophic commentators only mirrors the wretchedness of the real conditions in Germany. It is its aim to debunk and discredit the philosophic struggle with the shadows of reality, which appeals to the dreamy and muddled German nation.
Once upon a time a valiant fellow had the idea that men were drowned in water only because they were possessed with the idea of gravity. If they were to knock this notion out of their heads, say by stating it to be a superstition, a religious concept, they would be sublimely proof against any danger from water. His whole life long he fought against the illusion of gravity, of whose harmful results all statistics brought him new and manifold evidence. This valiant fellow was the type of the new revolutionary philosophers in Germany. — Marx
I suggest checking out Marx's criticism of Stirner. — Eee
not creating an end-of-history utopia where everything is safe and cozy for the non-egoist. — Eee
What is more egoist and "evil"?
A) Developing a entire philosophical thought about the true nature of egoism, and trying to explain that you, indeed, is egoist, and that you have to accept the fact that all you do is only for your own benefit.
B) Developing a entire philosophical thought about how to, in supposedly "harmony and altruism", confiscate everything from everyone on behalf of "Communism". — Gus Lamarch
I prefer the honest of position A, and indeed I have largely been a kind of egoist in the past. I have even written my own The Ego and His Own type of philosophy, where I 'fixed' Stirner or at least tried to clarify his text in my own preferred direction. So I don't at all simply take Marx's side. I take a position with distance from both of them. And maybe Stirner himself did, the man from his text. — Eee
I also love Feuerbach. — Eee
Maybe I'm challenging you because I think you are reading Stirner too politically. — Eee
By becoming as powerful as God we are causing our own demise. — ovdtogt
The Übermensch falls very much in the Fascist ideology (extreme libertarian-ism/individualism). — ovdtogt
See Hitlers admiration of Nietzsche's ideas. — ovdtogt
"After his death, his sister Elisabeth became the curator and editor of Nietzsche's manuscripts, reworking his unpublished writings to fit her own German nationalist ideology while often contradicting or obfuscating Nietzsche's stated opinions, which were explicitly opposed to antisemitism and nationalism. Through her published editions, Nietzsche's work became associated with fascism and Nazism" — Gus Lamarch
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.