Man is something to be surpassed — Jack Cummins

Yep. This idea is very much like how a caterpillar transforms into a butterfly i.e. the larva transcends itself from simply being an eating machine (I believe it eats more than its body weight in leaves per feeding session) into something that has beautiful wings and can fly. We too are meant to leave behind what passes for humanity (re Homo Deus, Yuval Noah Harari) and go, as they say in Star Trek, where no man has gone before.

You see the same sentiment being expressed by Maslow (Maslow's hierarchy of needs) - the tip of the pyramid of "necessities" is, if memory serves, TRANSCENDENCE!!!

I have read 'Homo Deus' by Yuval Noah Harari which looks at future possibilities and the idea of death as being a technical problem to be overcome. It is concerned with what is possible and I do see Nietszche's ideas as paving a starting point for trying to go beyond limitations but it is unclear if he was really thinking of this.

In comparison, Maslow's hierarchy of needs seems to point to self actualisation and peak experiences. Nietzsche could be seen as indicating the need to go beyond the state of 'robotic' consciousness, especially being enslaved by religious control. Also, I wonder how much of Nietzsche' s idea was related to his own mental health struggles. Even this is complicated though because it could even be that the philosophy he was developing were the source of his difficulties.

Generally, I do like his writings, especially, 'Thus Spake Zarathustra', but I see it more of being a psychological quest for freedom on an existential level. However, the actual translation of his ideas is potentially problematic, especially the idea of going beyond good and evil. What would this mean? It could be used to justify almost anything.

The overman is an ideal, a value, something to strive for... his tentative attempt at re-evaluation of values.

He thought western culture and philosophy was focused to much on static a-historical identities, on fixed being.

'Über' is 'over'. The over-man stands for a man that overcomes (his being). Being is becoming is the formula for this re-evaluation.

There’s an excellent little book I’ve been reading that answers these questions. It’s got some ingenious interpretations of the Overman and Will to Power. Really good stuff

You can download it here:
https://ca1lib.org/book/2641016/853436

I do see the idea of the 'overman' as an ideal but the notion of 'revaluation of values' is ambiguous in many ways. I guess that I do subscribe to the idea of revaluation of values though because I have certainly questioned a lot that I was socialised to believe. It is not that I am opposed to his philosophy and the idea of the 'overman' but I am thinking that it is a rather elastic idea, open to being stretched in many directions.

Thanks for the link. I will try to download the book and read it.

It is not that I am opposed to his philosophy and the idea of the 'overman' but I am thinking that it is a rather elastic idea, open to being stretched in many directions. — Jack Cummins

Yes I'd think he did that on purpose. Being a prelude to philosophers of the future and a beginning of re-evaluation et al., it has to be a bit non-specific if he wants it to be of use.

However, the actual translation of his ideas is potentially problematic, especially the idea of going beyond good and evil. What would this mean? It could be used to justify almost anything. — Jack Cummins

This idea shows up when discussing any issue about abandoning traditional values or the possibility of behaving in accordance with an inner voice. Look at the all the discussions we have on the forum about the possibilities of morality without God. It's the strongest criticism against one of my favorite philosophical works - Emerson's "Self-Reliance." I've also seen it as criticism of Taoism. Here's a profoundly radical quote from "Self-Reliance."

Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind. Absolve you to yourself, and you shall have the suffrage of the world. I remember an answer which when quite young I was prompted to make to a valued adviser, who was wont to importune me with the dear old doctrines of the church. On my saying, What have I to do with the sacredness of traditions, if I live wholly from within? my friend suggested, — “But these impulses may be from below, not from above.” I replied, “They do not seem to me to be such; but if I am the Devil’s child, I will live then from the Devil.” No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it. — Emerson

Beyond good and evil could be rephrased, salva veritate, as beyond hedonism. Of what practical use would hedonism be to a denizen of hell? It would only intensify/aggravate/worsen the situation for one who resides in jahanam to think about pleasure (good) and suffering (evil), oui? Perhaps for Nietzsche, earth is ruled by Satan!

It may be that the finding of one's own individual voice is a central aspect of the philosophy quest and that Nietzsche's approach is compatible with this. Finding the individual voice may be complex amidst all of the battling voices within and it may be here that Nietzsche, and Jung on individuation come into play. The Emerson quote is interesting too, in relation to the idea of the devil. Some may see the devil inside and others outside, and this may be bound up with the nature of projection and the ideas of good and evil as opposites, especially within the dualism of many religious perspectives.

I am not sure that Nietszche did intend to overcome hedonism, as his writings suggest that he valued the Dionysian principle of pleasure. I am inclined to think that he was more in favour of celebrating pleasure as opposed to categorizing acts into the division of 'good' and 'evil' as clear moral categories.

Was Nietzsche intending a literal goal of the posthuman condition as enhancement of the human condition, or was he pointing for greater freedom of thought? This ambiguity seems to arise in thinking of his concept of the superman. As a poetic philosopher was he inventing the concept of superman as symbolic for the evolution of the consciousness of human beings?
3h — Jack Cummins

Nietzsche was not an evolutionist.He was more of a revolutionist, but not in the sense of a dialectical teleological progression. His superman doesn’t represent a more advanced intelligence but the awareness of self as self overcoming. Self-overcoming is the endless replacement of older values by new values. The new values aren’t ‘better’ than the older ones, they’re just different.

↪Jack Cummins Beyond good and evil could be rephrased, salva veritate, as beyond hedonism — Agent Smith

Beyond good and evil refers to the overcoming of morality , not pleasure and pain.

What you say fits like a glove with Nietzsche's Darwinian bent: Evolution wouldn't have made x pleasurable and y painful if it weren't good. Add to that the fact that evolution is about "survival of the fittest" which Nietzsche thought meant "survival of the powerful" and what we have are the perfect ingredients for a might is right philosophy. Übermensch indeed! It's an irony that Nietzsche was sick, in mind and body, as per records.

:ok:

As an answer to the title … BADLY more often than not :D

Yes, it may be that the understanding of the concept is understood BADLY often, like a caricature 'superman' in a Marvel comic.

Was Nietzsche intending a literal goal of the posthuman condition as enhancement of the human condition, or was he pointing for greater freedom of thought? — Jack Cummins

Both.

When Nietzsche says:

"I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him? All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment..."

He is incisively attacking any and all primitive characteristics of humanity that - in his perception - make it impossible for the species to transcend the animal kingdom.

The "Übermensch" is not a kind of "Superman" but something totally different that arises from Man himself.

In my interpretation, Nietzsche is correct in stating that it is the instincts and, consequently, the prevailance of the emotions, that delay the process of Man's transcendence.

We have over 4,000 years of history to prove it...

I must have anything to do with his super moustachoe.

He must have admired the attempt of modern man to create robots.

Yes, it does seem likely that Nietszche is making a critical attack on the way in which human beings are driven by instincts, especially in his depiction of the 'herd morality'. It is interesting to think of the way the issue of emotions comes in here, and it may be that he sees the way in which human emotions have a negative impact.

But, of course, it can go the other way with people being cut off from emotions and Nietzsche himself did experience difficulties in his personal life. So, trying to take the idea forward it may be about not being swayed by the emotions and instincts, but the quest for transcendence is complicated. We cannot be machines and there is a danger that in the twentieth first century, with the interface between mind and machine people may end up going in that direction and become cut off from sensory pleasures.

In my interpretation, Nietzsche is correct in stating that it is the instincts and, consequently, the prevailance of the emotions, that delay the process of Man's transcendence. — Gus Lamarch

Quite the opposite , for Nietzsche our highest intellectual achievements are servants of our drives and instincts. He encourages us to multiply our drives and affects.


“Assuming that our world of desires and passions is the only thing “given” as real, that we cannot get down or up to any “reality” except the reality of our drives (since thinking is only a relation between these drives) – aren't we allowed to make the attempt and pose the question as to whether something like this “given” isn't enough to render the so-called mechanistic (and thus material) world comprehensible as well?

Assuming, finally, that we succeeded in explaining our entire life of drives as the organization and outgrowth of one basic form of will (namely, of the will to power, which is my claim); assuming we could trace all organic functions back to this will to power and find that it even solved the problem of procreation and nutrition (which is a single problem); then we will have earned the right to clearly designate all efficacious force as: will to power. The world seen from inside, the world determined and described with respect to its “intelligible character” – would be just this “will to power” and nothing else.”

“From now on, my philosophical colleagues, let us be more wary of the dangerous old conceptual fairy-tale which has set up a ‘pure, will-less, painless, timeless, subject of knowledge', let us be wary of the tentacles of such contradictory concepts as ‘pure reason', ‘absolute spirituality', ‘knowledge as such': – here we are asked to think an eye which cannot be thought at all, an eye turned in no direction at all, an eye where the active and interpretative powers are to be suppressed, absent, but through which seeing still becomes a seeing-something, so it is an absurdity and non-concept of eye that is demanded. There is only a perspectival seeing, only a perspectival ‘knowing'; the more affects we are able to put into words about a thing, the more eyes, various eyes we are able to use for the same thing, the more complete will be our ‘concept' of the thing, our ‘objectivity'. But to eliminate the will completely and turn off all the emotions without exception, assuming we could: well? would that not mean to castrate the intellect? . . “(Genealogy of Morals)

But, of course, it can go the other way with people being cut off from emotions and Nietzsche himself did experience difficulties in his personal life. So, trying to take the idea forward it may be about not being swayed by the emotions and instincts, but the quest for transcendence is complicated. We cannot be machines and there is a danger that in the twentieth first century, with the interface between mind and machine people may end up going in that direction and become cut off from sensory pleasures. — Jack Cummins

After all my study of the literary works and the life that Nietzsche had, as well as of his own personal opinions, I can say with certainty that, had he saw the state of the contemporary world, he would commit suicide soon after, because everything and everyone, nowadays, can be described as Nietzsche's "The Last Man":

“There they stand; there they laugh: they don't understand me; I am not the mouth for these ears… They have something of which they are proud. What do they call it, that which makes them proud? Culture, they call it; it distinguishes them from the goats. They dislike, therefore, to hear of “contempt” of themselves. So I will appeal to their pride. I will speak to them of the most contemptible thing: that, however, is the Last Man!”

But what is the "Last Man" you ask me, and again, Nietzsche can speak for himself:

“I tell you: one must still have chaos in oneself, to give birth to a dancing star. I tell you: you have still chaos in yourselves. Alas! There comes the time when man will no longer give birth to any star. Alas! There comes the time of the most despicable man, who can no longer despise himself. Bah! I show you the Last Man."

“What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?” — so asks the Last Man, and blinks. The earth has become small, and on it hops the Last Man, who makes everything small. His species is ineradicable as the flea; the Last Man lives longest.”

On our quest to Übermensch, we reached - Last Man!

The way in which I see the idea of the 'last man' is symbolic of the post-apocalyptic predicament and that may be where the idea of the posthuman condition comes in. There may be a parallel between this and Baudrillard's idea of the end of history. It is a possible source of despair with human beings on the verge of destruction. But, even then, it does involve the possibility of chaos 'giving birth to a dancing star'. So, the idea of 'superman' or 'the last man' can symbolize the highest possible, the outcome of history and civilisation as a culmination of human potential.

Quite the opposite , for Nietzsche our highest intellectual achievements are servants of our drives and instincts.


“Assuming that our world of desires and passions is the only thing “given” as real, that we cannot get down or up to any “reality” except the reality of our drives (since thinking is only a relation between these drives) – aren't we allowed to make the attempt and pose the question as to whether something like this “given” isn't enough to render the so-called mechanistic (and thus material) world comprehensible as well?

Assuming, finally, that we succeeded in explaining our entire life of drives as the organization and outgrowth of one basic form of will (namely, of the will to power, which is my claim); assuming we could trace all organic functions back to this will to power and find that it even solved the problem of procreation and nutrition (which is a single problem); then we will have earned the right to clearly designate all efficacious force as: will to power. The world seen from inside, the world determined and described with respect to its “intelligible character” – would be just this “will to power” and nothing else.” — Joshs

Nietzsche's relation to the instinctual-rational duality is a hierarchical one.

In fact, everything that is rational - in his perception - arises from the irrational - the will to power -, however, when arguing about the search for the Übermensch, Nietzsche makes explicit the incompatibility of the rational transcendental future of humanity, with the earthly future. species instinct:

"My brothers, why is there a need in the spirit for the lion? Why is not the beast of burden, which renounces and is reverent, enough? To create new values ​​-- that even the lion cannot do; but the creation of freedom for oneself and a sacred "No" even to duty -- for that, my brothers, the lion is needed. To assume the right to new values ​​-- that is the most terrifying assumption for a reverent spirit that would bear much. to him it is preying, and a matter for a beast of prey. He once loved "thou shalt" as most sacred: now he must find illusion and caprice even in the most sacred, that freedom from his love may become his prey: the lion is needed for such prey. But say, my brothers, what can the child do that even the lion could not do? Why must the preying lion still become a child? The child is innocence and forgetting, a new beginning, a game, a self-propelled wheel, a first movement, a sacred "Yes." For the game of creation, my brothers, a sacred "Yes" is needed: the spirit now wills his own will dele, and he who had been lost to the world now conquers the world."

Humanity's instinctive and emotional base must be used as the initial purposeful engine of the journey to the Übermensch, however, after all its load has been used, it must be discarded completely by this new "Being".

In short, "Humanity" is only "Humanity" because it is a medium between an irrational animal and the theoretical Übermensch.

An Übermensch who lets himself be carried away by emotions is anything but an Übermensch.

He is incisively attacking any and all primitive characteristics of humanity that - in his perception - make it impossible for the species to transcend the animal kingdom. — Gus Lamarch

“ one must ask whether Nietzsche really thinks that
our animal origins are “shameful,” and whether humans are really “higher” than the primates. For when we compare the probity and rigor (as well as the surprising cohesiveness) of Nietzsche’s naturalism with his more traditional and anthropocentric remarks about apes, the
latter seem conceptually insubstantial and incoherent. As we have seen, Nietzsche’s naturalism questions the very speciesism that he himself occasionally falls back upon. But precisely because the tension between these two elements is so obvious and explicit, we should be
careful not to draw hasty conclusions about the consistency of Nietzsche’s thought. It seems unlikely that a thinker as nuanced—and as sensitive to the art of writing—as Nietzsche would have so quickly forgotten his own insights. Rather, when Nietzsche exhumes the traditional anthropocentric assumptions about primates, he is more probably exploiting his readers’ popular prejudices for rhetorical effect, while at the same time retaining an ironic distance from such conceits.”(Peter Groff, Who is Zarathustra’s Ape?)

the idea of 'superman' or 'the last man' symbolizing the highest possible, the outcome of history and civilisation as a culmination of human potential. — Jack Cummins

In fact, Nietzsche believed that humanity - in his period - had immense potential, both for splendor and overcoming - Übermensch - and for destruction and resentment - Last Man -. However, with the privilege of being able to analyze the future of his era - the entire 20th century and, up to the present, the 21st century - it is clear that humanity has misunderstood his ideas, and, in search of transcendence, we ended up inprisoned in instincts and irrationality.

“ one must ask whether Nietzsche really thinks that
our animal origins are “shameful,” and whether humans are really “higher” than the primates. For when we compare the probity and rigor (as well as the surprising cohesiveness) of Nietzsche’s naturalism with his more traditional and anthropocentric remarks about apes, the
latter seem conceptually insubstantial and incoherent. As we have seen, Nietzsche’s naturalism questions the very speciesism that he himself occasionally falls back upon. But precisely because the tension between these two elements is so obvious and explicit, we should be
careful not to draw hasty conclusions about the consistency of Nietzsche’s thought. It seems unlikely that a thinker as nuanced—and as sensitive to the art of writing—as Nietzsche would have so quickly forgotten his own insights. Rather, when Nietzsche exhumes the traditional anthropocentric assumptions about primates, he is more probably exploiting his readers’ popular prejudices for rhetorical effect, while at the same time retaining an ironic distance from such conceits.”(Peter Groff, Who is Zarathustra’s Ape?) — Joshs

In fact, Nietzsche's perception is intrinsic to the time in which he lived, however, the vast majority of his literature still portrays and can be applied to an overwhelming part of our contemporary society.

I would argue that Nietzsche was a very good ontologist and a very bad anthropologist when both are applied to philosophy.

Humanity's instinctive and emotional base must be used as the initial purposeful engine of the journey to the Übermensch, however, after all its load has been used, it must be discarded completely by this new "Being".

In short, "Humanity" is only "Humanity" because it is a medium between an irrational animal and the theoretical Übermensch.

An Übermensch who lets himself be carried away by emotions is anything but an Übermensch. — Gus Lamarch

I recognize there are widely varying readings of Nietzsche. I prefer postmodern interpretations of him like those of Deleuze, Heidegger and Derrida.

They jettison the rational-irrational binary in favor of an understanding of knowledge and fact as only existing in relation to overarching value systems that define their sense. These value systems are affectively driven, contingent and relative. Thus it makes no sense to separate fact from value, passion, drive, emotion, affect. They seen Nietzsche as showing us the inseparability of fact and value , the affective and the rational.

If you google Nietzsche-postmodernism you’ll see what I mean.

You, on the other hand, seem to maintian a separation between fact and value, the rational and the affective. I’m guessing your preference is for modernist, realist philosophy.

I’m guessing your preference is for modernist, realist philosophy. — Joshs

Indeed.

By übermensch I understand the culmination of Freddy Zarathustra's centuries-long, or millennia-long, cultural project of "breeding and education" of a psychological type of human being that instinctively affirms and lives by "the ordeals" mentioned in this old post https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/628098

In other words, Freddy's gedankenexperiment 'predicts' that the übermensch is born (bred) to pass the existential (or meta-psychological) test of "the eternal recurrence of the same" as proposed in The Gay Science (§341) – which is a cultural goal, not a 'Darwinian or Maslowian ideal' (and absolutely antithetical to the 'Aryan Herrenvolk' for which Nazi propagandists had misappropriated the imagery of "Übermenschen" ("the Blond Beast" "Master Morality" etc) as an ideological precursor with the enthusiastic support of N's anti-semitic, proto-Nazi, opportunistic sister who was his literary executor, etc).

Was Nietzsche intending a literal goal of the posthuman condition as enhancement of the human condition, or was he pointing for greater freedom of thought? — Jack Cummins

No. No.

As a poetic philosopher was he inventing the concept of superman as symbolic for the evolution of the consciousness of human beings?

No. Cultivation, not "evolution". (See Aristotle's Megalopsychia aka "great-souled man").