/lit/ - Literature

>>18109513
He did, and talks quite perceptively about it at times.

Idk maaan, nietzsche is intentionally obscure and basically asked the nazis to bend his philosophical legs over his head and assfuck his ideas into a shit soup they could legitimize their ideology with

>>18109540
Doubt

>>18109513
Why are all critics of nietzsche weak losers? Makes you think.

>>18109513
Why didn't you check the catalog for one of the other 4 Nietzsche threads and post your gay question in there?

>>18109513
idk man
looks like an a&f model

>>18109576
>Why didn't you check the catalog for one of the other 4 Nietzsche threads and post your gay question in there?

>>18109565
Cringe

>>18109513
Nietzsche did have the foresight and it is part of his deception. Embracing this deception and turning his readers into sacrificial lambs is the closest he came to not being a spiritual Christian in his actual life. He wants us to become a herd of Last Men because only then can the Overman come to be, and even then, it is risky, because a herd of Last Men might make the ground to barren to ever give birth to the Overman, but it is a risk he is willing to take. Nietzsche himself acknowledged that he is a Last Man, writing for Last Men

>I call myself the last philosopher because I am the last man. Nobody talks to me as myself, and my voice comes to me like that of a dying person (summer 1872).

>>18109593
Retard

https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/12god2/bertrand_russell_on_friedrich_nietzsche/

>>18109611
too barren*

In calling himself the last man he acknowledges that he himself doesn't know what love is, what eternity is, what passion is, what poetry is, what greatness is. I wouldn't recommend Nietzsche to anyone as a first philosopher to read

>>18109611
What retarded cope.

>>18109632
a cope for what?

>>18109623
You can tell all the neetch spam comes from redditors

>>18109614
>Retard

Physiognomy doesn't lie.

>>18109513
The only one I know who "embraced his style" is icycalm. Not even the French postmodernists did.

>>18109902
>icycalm
The Last Ubermensch

>>18109902
Well also jordan peterson. Case closed there - nietzsche btfo

>>18109924
>Well also jordan peterson
is this bait

>>18109945
He's a Nietzschean. Why deny the obvious?

>>18109963
so yes

>>18109966
Only 20% bait.

Because he was a radical for his time and leftists have always embraced radicals disregarding the opinions they disagree with and embracing them simply for being radical. Today the view of Nietzsche as this "radical thinker" has stuck because the majority of Nietzschean philosophers where exactly this type of leftist. Today, the "herd" are either these old-fashioned leftists who enjoy Nietzsche for being a radical against his time, or are simply edgy idiots who have never read and/or understood Nietzsche, and instead "understand" him TRHOUGH the old-fashioned leftists.

>>18109999
based and checked

>>18109999
So he wanted to be misunderstood by the leftists while also writing for the herd? What was his goal with this?

>>18109513
He looks dapper af. Why couldn't he get a gf?

>>18110043
Get your eyes checked. He looks like shit.

>>18110042
No? Why would he want to be misunderstood and write for the herd? Where did you get this idea? Nietzsche knew he would not be understood by the herd and would be misunderstood by people who pretend to be smart, he writes if in the Twilight of the Idols.

>>18110056
He'd slay today

>>18110061
But the herd loves him

>>18110076
And? People are stupid and people these days love to pretend being intellectuals.

>>18110065

>>18110120
That's a caricature.

>>18110141
And a true one.

>>18110205
He didn't actually look like that.

>>18110076
The herd loves the bastardized version that leftists teach of him

>>18110221
Read the op again fucking idiot

>>18110042
>>18109999
he didn´t give a fuck about leftism

>>18110260
So what, Nietzsche shouldn't have written down anything then? Leftists butcher everything they read, it can't be helped.

>>18110277
Retard.

Zarathustra is all about this.

>>18110332
You're an idiot. The OP asked why Nietzsche didn't have the foresight to see that the herd would embrace his style, but the herd hasn't done that. The herd has just done what the herd was doing during his lifetime and what it was always done: it has bastardized him, eliminated all the undesirable aspects from his philosophy (which is most of it), misquoted him (the herd loves repeating that stupid quote about dancing to music no one else can hear, a line that Nietzsche himself never even wrote) and dressed itself in this leftist-approved straw man of him.

>>18110357
why are you talking about the herd as if you're not a part of it? Why are you talking about it as if Nietzsche himself wasn't a part of it. Until there is an Overman, everything is just the universal herd

>>18110357
>You're an idiot
>can't read
Every time

>>18109565
There is a very large population of humans that live their lives with the ethos "more comfortable = better" and anything that works outside of this is unthinkable

>>18110374
>>18110381

>>18110412
wtf are you on about?

>Nietzsche
>Freud
>Foucault
>Deleuze
>Peterson
>icycalm
>moldbug
Herd status
CONFIRMED

>>18110434
What are YOU on about, moron? Do you ever get to the point you're making?

>>18110445
are you retarded? Nietzsche is a part of the herd, so are you and so am I. What's so difficult to understand?

>>18110448
How does that have anything to do with what's being discussed here? Are you incapable of self-reflection?

>>18110452
you have to be trolling. I'm asking you why you are talking about the herd as if you're not a part of it, you don't understand this, and then you're asking if I am incapable of self-reflection?

>>18110468
We're not all equally entrenched in the herd. This idea that you can't talk about something because you are part of it is just an attempt to undermine Nietzsche's points.

>>18110495
>no you can't undermine things only I can do that
Now where have I herd that one before?

>>18110519
You can undermine all you want, but that's still what you're doing. It's essentially a cope and you remain strongly tied to the herd on account of it.

>>18110495
And I am telling you that until Nietzsche's Overman is realised, there is nothing but a herd of equally entrenched sheep. Nietzsche knows there can't be a society of Overmen, he wants us to create the Overman, but knows that all of us, including himself, are nothing but Overmen. This is why he calls himself the Anti-Christ because he actively wants us to reject what he sees to be Christ's rotting corpse and rotting values and create a new Overman, but he is implicitly aware that all this new Overman will do is create a new shadow of values under which a society of higher men will be formed who will end up morphing into Last Men and this cycle will repeat indefinitely. In a real sense, it doesn't matter at all whether leftists misrepresent him. You show yourself to be a deep part of the herd bc you are still tied to the will to truth of the paradigm Nietzsche wants to destroyed

>>18110536
are nothing but Last men*

Nietzsche's solution is only a solution if you sheepishly swallow everything he has to say. Sheepishly following things is what the herd does and will always do

>>18110536
>And I am telling you that until Nietzsche's Overman is realised, there is nothing but a herd of equally entrenched sheep.
There are also the "higher men" aka the hyperboreans. They aren't the Overman, but they are still higher, as in richer and more complex, less herd-like than the rest.

>You show yourself to be a deep part of the herd bc you are still tied to the will to truth of the paradigm Nietzsche wants to destroyed
I am part of the herd because I spend time defending what Nietzsche was saying against his detractors, but the leftists who don't even read him yet claim to advocate his ideas are even more herd than I am. They're retards who push the will to truth much more often than I ever do and who continue to assert a good-and-evil morality against a perceived oppressor.

>>18110526
What the fuck are you talking about?

>>18110574
I think the notion of the higher men is either a deliberate deception by Nietzsche or where he himself, as a last man, slips into a will to truth claim. Every quality you just mentioned as denoting 'higher' values is born from the remnant of everything God represents. I only see Nietzsche introducing this notion so as to more quickly convert an indifferent herd of sheep that quite enjoys God's shadow to let go of it and instead desire the Overman. The choice between either is completely arbitrary. The difference is sheep is not a matter of degree but a matter of kind

rate my meme

>>18110587
What's confusing you? I wasn't saying you can't undermine him or me by calling you out on it. Undermine all you want. Be the herd if you like.

But, undermining someone (as in avoiding their points and sneaking past them) is what the herd does. You have to fight with monsters directly to overcome them. You have to actually read the author closely and learn what he has felt and thought and feel and think it yourself before you can overcome him. Pretending you have overcome the author without closely reading the author, or that you have overcome the herd without engaging with it, is a cope.

>>18110621
The higher man is just a stronger individual who resembles far more progress away from the herd than everyone underneath him does. It's not a deception, it's an intermediary type, like the human is between ape and Overman. The higher man stands between the human and the Overman as another intermediary type.

>>18109513

What style? You mean his philosophy? The normie mentality brought about by mass culture is what Nietzsche criticized and he was very perceptive about the nature of mass culture and how it would evolve

>>18110677
again, 'stronger'? What is strength? You cannot wrench the concept of strength from the values it embodies because it is only in this sense that strength has meaning and isn't an empty concept. These values are handed down to us, either by the Christian God or the pantheon of Greco-Roman gods, the herd. How is strength distinct from violence? What is violence? It is all the herd and its bleating. What is the higher man other than the bleating of a sheep? What is the Overman other than the bleating of a sheep? Progress? From one kind of bleating to another kind of bleating?

>>18110677
Holy fuck you're dumb

>>18110712
>What do any of these words and concepts mean? I haven't read the author who defined them, by the way.
Why concern yourself with any of this when you don't actually care? And if you think you're on to something big, you aren't. Nietzsche answered all these questions already.

>>18110819
>Nietzsche answered all these questions already.
Post the answers then

>>18110819
Because I can. I am not here to do 'big' things, whatever that might mean. Nor am I, like Nietzsche, afraid of the will to truth or curse its existence, so I am free in exposing the logical conclusion of Nietzsche's thought and his metaphysical assumptions

>>18110830
I'll re-post the answer to one I already wrote out: What is the Overman? The Overman is, in Nietzsche's words, one who represents "the antithetical character of existence most strongly, as its glory and sole justification" (WP 881), who has "the greatest multiplicity of drives, in the relatively greatest strength that can be endured" (WP 966), who bears "the greatest responsibility" and doesn't "collapse under it" (WP 975), who lives "beyond the rulers, freed from all bonds" (WP 998), and who "determines values and directs the will of millennia by giving direction to the highest natures" (WP 999).

Now, with this in mind, how does your question, "What is the Overman other than the bleating of a sheep?" make sense? It doesn't anymore. Your question undermines what the concept of the Overman is. It sneaks past it and avoids addressing what it is entirely.

>b-but Nietzsche did the same to others!

According to his detractors. But reading Nietzsche closely, I have found that he has always only ever addressed what he had already personally grappled with in his life. He does not undermine anyone; he overcomes them.

>>18110819
And you are positively retarded if you extrapolate that I haven't read Nietzsche. In your being a disciple of Nietzsche you refute yourself. You want a sheep to be your shepherd

>>18110877
You are much too entrenched in doctrinal readings to not see how by calling the Overman the bleating of a sheep that everything Nietzsche says the Overman is, is just that. Everything Nietzsche says the Overman is.

>>18110893
I mean that everything*

>>18110878
>>18110893
You haven't read him. At most you've skimmed him. Therefore, you haven't overcome him, and you certainly aren't above him. At the very least I have the decency to admit where I stand in relation to the Overman; but even then, all this is already understood about your type, so it hardly comes as a surprise.

>>18110917
>t: too dumb to understand internal critique
You don't understand what the implications of Nietzsche's writings are so it comes as no surprise that you don't understand what it means for a fellow last man to make any claims about what the Overman is

>>18110943
And what implications are those?

>fellow last man
Unless you consciously advocate a doctrine of living strictly for comfort and oppose everything that adds to conflict in the world, you aren't a last man. And no, a last man is not simply what you want it to be. Nietzsche is not Stirner.

>>18111273
That we are all members of the herd. I have shown how Nietzsche can't speak of higher men without appealing to the will to truth and the value systems he wants us to 'overcome' (which again appeals to these systems) and destroy. What we are left with are the herd, last men, and his theoretical Overman, where the last men, as I have already said in light of the reduction of higher men, are not distinct from the herd by matter of degree but by matter of kind. They are just a kind of sheep who I suspect Nietzsche thinks will be the true bridge to the Overman. He tells the herd that the higher men will be the bridge to entice them. They hear higher, and much like yourself, now feel that their life has worth insofar as they can distinguish themselves from the sheep and prepare the way for the Overman. In taking this leap, all they have done is take the bleating of a last man, Nietzsche, a sheep, and guided themselves with his empty and arbitrary bleating.

>nooo Nietzsche isn't a last man!!

"Den letzten Philosophen nenne ich mich, denn ich bin der letzte Mensch. Niemand redet mit mir als ich selbst, und meine Stimme kommt wie die eines Sterbenden zu mir."

I call myself the last philosopher for I am the last man. Nobody talks to me as myself, and my voice comes to me like that of a dying man.

And so in the spirit of Nietzsche's writing, I reduce the notions of higher men, Overman to the bleating of a fellow last man, a fellow sheep.

Nietzsche isn't the Anti-Christ like he calls himself in a state of mania. At best, he is merely anti-God shadow worshippers. Only his Overman can place himself against Christ as his antipode. He doesn't announce himself. He doesn't ask you to desire him. His existence causes the herd to flock to him and seek respite in the values that his shadow casts

>>18109513
did someone say the hurd?

>>18111358
>dude Nietzsche tricked you!!!
No shit. When actually reading Nietzsche thoroughly, everyone comes to this conclusion, because he almost blatantly gives it away on multiple occasions. It's part of his epistemological thinking to eventually reach this conclusion. Yet despite this, there are some who, regardless of the deception, realize its necessity for the renewal of life, and do not condemn it, and then reach another conclusion.

What do you stand for, then? Endless nihilism? Death? Do you prefer to live in a hell where there is no task at hand and nothing worth striving for? Nietzsche reversed the values of his age, your values ultimately, so that there could be new springs of life and new opportunities of creativity and destruction to come with them. Everything you say here is a reversal once more, now of his reversal, but without anything like that a part of it. That's why what Nietzsche wrote will be read and admired and will go on to transform its readers, and why what you write won't do anything of the sort.

>>18111872
>Nietzsche reversed the values of his age,
Stop being retarded

>>18111881
The growing democratic energies and rampant liberalism and feminism ensuing from the 18th century are the values he reversed.

>>18111872
you really are clueless

>>18111889
>live in a matriarchy just like him and his sister
Yeah great job.

>>18111892
you really are clueless

>>18111901
>And yet you participate in society. Curious!

>>18111889
Huge midwit giveaway when you confuse 18th century for 1800s, like unbelievable giveaway.

>>18111907
The French Revolution was what century, again?

>>18111872
did you are a fucking retard holy shit. This is not what you have been saying for the entirety of the thread. Just admit that you got btfo

>>18111952
>This is not what you have been saying for the entirety of the thread.
Show me anything I said prior that contradicts that post.

>>18111963
>No shit. When actually reading Nietzsche thoroughly, everyone comes to this conclusion, because he almost blatantly gives it away on multiple occasions. It's part of his epistemological thinking to eventually reach this conclusion. Yet despite this, there are some who, regardless of the deception, realize its necessity for the renewal of life, and do not condemn it, and then reach another conclusion.

>The higher man is just a stronger individual who resembles far more progress away from the herd than everyone underneath him does. It's not a deception, it's an intermediary type, like the human is between ape and Overman. The higher man stands between the human and the Overman as another intermediary type.

???

Are you not the same anon? If you are then you truly are stupid and should stop embarrassing yourself

>>18109547

that was his sister, she did this after he went nuts from syphilis (acquired from a hooker)

>>18111973
You missed the end of the top paragraph:

>and then reach another conclusion.

That conclusion being, that this entire matter, of whether something is deception or not, is just a matter of tempo, and isn't a concern.

Of course, the peabrained leftist who reads this conclusion without feeling it himself, because he hasn't yet felt the prerequisite conclusions for himself, then thinks that nothing means anything, all meaning is a mess, meanings are traded and worn as whimsically as hats, without realizing that your head still needs to be the right shape and size for the hat, otherwise it's going to blow right off you once you make a move.

And on top of that, the resentful type, who may be a Christian or an atheist, or a liberal or a conservative, will then try to reverse the whole thing on its head and wear his hat on his ass, like this anon does >>18111358 then claiming that everyone else is wearing their hats on their asses. But the ruse is obvious, because it leads nowhere and inspires no one.

>>18112057
your analogy makes absolutely no sense. You are an idiot, but your heart is in the right place, I'll give you that. Camus and Sartre of all people shows you that all of Nietzsche's ramblings lead you nowhere. Nietzsche implicitly tells you this. You can either continue being a sheep in the shadow of Christ, or choose to become a sacrificial lamb for the Overman, and Camus will add, embrace the absurdity, and Sartre will say create your own values (for most people this just means living in the shadow of Christ). Get over it

>>18112380
>Camus and Sartre of all people shows you that all of Nietzsche's ramblings lead you nowhere.
No they don't. 20th century French thinkers didn't inherit Nietzsche's philosophy as a heritage because their society was not built with his ideas in mind. No society in the 20th century was built with his ideas in mind, not even American society, which was the most Nietzschean society of the 20th century. However, American society has drastically changed the world, and has pushed it closer towards a truly Nietzschean society and age, so as far as things stand, his "ramblings" aren't leading us "nowhere."

>You can either continue being a sheep in the shadow of Christ, or choose to become a sacrificial lamb for the Overman, and Camus will add, embrace the absurdity, and Sartre will say create your own values (for most people this just means living in the shadow of Christ).
It's not much of a choice. The world is rolling away from Christ and towards the Overman even if the herd piss and moan about it.

>>18112380
It really is this simple isnt it? Bcs thats how ive always understood it

>>18110268
He wrote a whole chapter on it in TSZ. He just didn't use the words "left" or "right" because he didn't want it to be overtly political. Also, these terms spring from the French Revolution, and Nietzsche was opposed to it.

>>18112442
>The world is rolling away from Christ
Correct.
> towards the Overman
False. You mean the last man.

>>18112442
anon, you're way too optimistic about this Overman. Jesus was an Overman. The next Overman will just repeat this cycle over and over again. If the thought of him makes you happy, fine, if you think this is leading you 'somewhere', fine, but don't delude yourself into thinking this makes you 'higher' bc thinking under that paradigm is just a remnant of the old shadow. Living in function of the Overman makes you just as much as a hinterweltler as the Christians who wish for an eternity with Christ. The Overman won't be what you think he will be and won't embody the values you so desperately want him to embody bc they are not your values. In the face of this, all Nietzsche can tell you is love your fate

>>18112449
It really is

>>18112460
The world doesn't roll towards the last man because the last man doesn't inspire anyone. The last man is a byproduct of the final stage of the Christian development of civilization and dies off and disappears from history, being the last man and all.

>>18112475
>because the last man doesn't inspire anyone.
Yes it does. Most people yearn to live like the last man because they see that as the pinnacle of life (just go out and ask anyone what they think the purpose of life is, or their best guess). If you had any insight whatsoever into the tendencies of modern humans, you'd see that is exactly where we are heading. Where are the precursors to the overman in today's world? Where are the people sacrificing themselves for the sake of the overman? They don't exist. It's virtually just humanity trying to make life as comfortable for itself as possible, which is to say humanity is transforming into the abominable last man who cannot even hate himself.
>and dies off and disappears from history
What? How can you know this? Does he appear to be dying off right now? Hell no. The term "last man" is used because he is literally the last stage of human devolution. We don't go lower from there, and nor do we go higher, because the social environment becomes too stagnant and hostile to superior values to even potentially produce the overman, and there is no need to go lower because we have all of the comforts and pleasures we need.

>>18112496
>Yes it does. Most people yearn to live like the last man because they see that as the pinnacle of life (just go out and ask anyone what they think the purpose of life is, or their best guess).
Most people do not actually change the world or have any influence on it. You are confused as to who's in the driver's seat here. Their intentions don't matter. It's the intentions of those who can make a change that matter, and they are the ones who yearn for the Overman today rather than Christ.

> If you had any insight whatsoever into the tendencies of modern humans, you'd see that is exactly where we are heading.
This was already the insight that Nietzsche had. You are very confused as to what stage of our civilization's development Nietzsche was writing for. The last men don't create, they just die, and they are abominations made by Christianity. The only last man to ever inspire anyone was Nietzsche, but only because he was the one who posited a philosophy for the future, for the next age after the Christian one, one that he himself could not inherit or be part of and instead was one that he knew had to be inherited by those made ready for it so that all of Europe did not become full of last men like himself some day (effectively making him, philosophically speaking, the opposite of the last man). He is the last man who hung on the cross so as to redeem (and destroy) the entire lot of them because he rejected himself in a unique way that nobody else has really done, and because he initiated the first major phase of the next age that would repudiate the current one.

>Where are the precursors to the overman in today's world? Where are the people sacrificing themselves for the sake of the overman?
Working in labs for the most part. The Overman isn't human, he is superhuman. He is more human than human.

>Does he appear to be dying off right now? Hell no. The term "last man" is used because he is literally the last stage of human devolution.
Yes, he is dying off right now. Nothing human makes it out of the near-future. We aren't gravitating towards a civilization that lacks all hierarchical form, and you can see this clearly if you take a closer look at what is happening in the economic and technological sectors today.

>>18112588
>It's the intentions of those who can make a change that matter
...Which are either rich businessmen focused on making money (again under the same pretext of what matters - comfort/pleasure) or career politicians just interested in either filling their bank accounts or fixing some other surrogate ethical issue like climate change (always with the same idea of human wellbeing in mind).
>This was already the insight that Nietzsche had. You are very confused as to what stage of our civilization's development Nietzsche was writing for.
We're still in the same stage as Nietzsche's time, merely more progressed. There's no reason to think otherwise.
>Working in labs for the most part.
Scientists are nothing close to overman. Nietzsche specifically railed against their types as special kinds of life deniers with the "theologian" countenance. They are weak slave-types with the only redeeming feature being a keen intellect.
>Yes, he is dying off right now. Nothing human makes it out of the near-future.
You keep saying this, but there is literally nothing to support your assertion.
>We aren't gravitating towards a civilization that lacks all hierarchical form
Yes, we are. We had kings and emperors 300 years ago ruling by the right of blood and honour. Then we swapped to dictators and tyrants ruling by raw military power. Then we swapped to career politicians who are essentially strung along by the bourgeoisie, and soon the bourgeoisie as a ruling class is going to be deposed, or at least reduced to such a state as to have barely any leverage (or better yet, internal differentiation, such that the proletarian is in all ways except pure currency ownership indistinguishable from the bourgeoisie) with respect to the masses. All of the signs, following the historical trends, point towards the final dissolution of all hierarchy. There are already massive calls to do something about wealth inequality, demands to establish a planetary governing body superior to the UN to deal with overseas tax havens and thus permanently stifle any leverage by wealth holders. This will all be coming to fruition at some point in the future, when the time is ripe.

>>18112588
Your idea of the "overman" should really be titled the "underman." What you see as the ascendance of the overman is actually the final domination of the lowest man (this is given by your view that the bugs working in labs are somehow precursors to the "overman"). Your view of what really constitutes the superior is totally inverted. You are unwittingly promoting the doctrine of the supremacy of the underman in the guise of the overman.

>>18109513
>Zarathustra’s Ape; Treitschke, ect.
anticipated the reader that does not read as well

>>18110536
These ‘hot house’ conditions are ideal to produce Overmen — especially when the hour of decision is being reached as to whether we will conquer the stars, or remain Promethean bound on a free range fiat banking gulag

>>18112661
>rich businessmen and career politicians
Yes, but the ones backing the scientists are the ones (together with the scientists) who are actually making a change. There is a lot of technology today that is made, implemented and used for the purpose of making people more unequal between one another rather than the opposite. Those inventions, implementations and uses are done by those striving for the Overman rather than Christ. So you can't say that there's nobody operating with this goal today.

>We're still in the same stage as Nietzsche's time, merely more progressed.
Right. My point was that I'm already fully aware that most of the world is heading towards the last man, and it doesn't change anything we're talking about.

>Scientists are nothing close to overman.
You didn't ask for examples of the Overman, you asked for the Overman's precursors, the ones sacrificing themselves for his sake. The scientists and their businessmen who work on dangerous new technologies that make us question the value of many humans on earth while simultaneously boosting the status of the scientists, businessmen, and those who can make use of the technologies are the ones doing so and also the ones making the most substantial changes in the world, and they are certainly not gravitating towards the last men.

>You keep saying this, but there is literally nothing to support your assertion.
We're talking about the future, which neither of us know for certain. However, there are clearly people in the world who can make a change striving for the Overman today. There are people striving for the last men and there have been these people for a long time. It doesn't mean they have won yet. I really don't care if you think they will, either, not only because I disagree, but because that's besides the point, which was to demonstrate to you how you are wrong in asserting that the whole world strives for the last man and that Nietzsche has made no dent in it. He clearly has and there is clearly a cultural war still going on since his time.

>>18112703
I didn't give my idea of the Overman, so what are you talking about here?

>>18112762
>boosting the status of the scientists, businessmen, and those who can make use of the technologies are the ones doing so and also the ones making the most substantial changes in the world

Yes, to live comfortable Last Men lives.

>and they are certainly not gravitating towards the last men.

It is the only direction they are headed for.

>>18112839
Any technology that uproots civilization is not made to live comfortable Last Men lives.

>>18110536
Why should I follow Nietzsche's evaluation? Is it even true?

>>18110917
No man can be overcome; you would only be "overcoming" their writings, and even then, your understanding and attachment to their writings. Therefore, all "overcomings" are relative to the person doing the overcoming, and instrumental to them on their path of growth. I'm not going to wring out my hair for the remainder of my life because I have not become Nietzsche in order to overcome him; I may have merely understood his import- broadly speaking, the spirit governing him- and been able to defeat that.

>>18111872
Sappy nonsense topped by defeatism. Why do you care enough to tell someone he will never amount to anything? What do you know about that person, and their life and future?

>>18112442
>The world is rolling away from Christ and towards the Overman even if the herd piss and moan about it.
Substantiate this with real-world evidence.

>>18112588
>Working in labs for the most part. The Overman isn't human, he is superhuman
The ones that are working, or the ones that are being experimented upon? What makes you think they will be given free rein, rather than being puppets for their slavish masters?

>>18112913
If you have had the time to answer other anon's questions, surely you can tell me what this Ubermensch will do; what sort of a person will he be, and what changes will he bring about? Why is this anything but a vague prediction?

>>18112996
>No man can be overcome; you would only be "overcoming" their writings, and even then, your understanding and attachment to their writings.
You can overcome the faults of the other if they are also your faults, so long as you observe the other. We call the product of this process wisdom, do we not?

>The ones that are working, or the ones that are being experimented upon?
The ones working, i.e. creating new technologies, in service of those who share Nietzsche's philosophy, which may have been formulated by him best, but which is really an ancient one at bottom. Technologies made to make the old and simpler obsolete and pave way for the new and more complex are made in that service.

>surely you can tell me what this Ubermensch will do
What the Ubermensch wants, just like everyone else is doing, but the Ubermensch is not like everyone else. The Ubermensch is the more complex lifeform with more complex desires and a taste for war, with the intellect and spirit to prove it. See >>18110877 for a bit more detail.

>Why is this anything but a vague prediction?
Because the Ubermensch has already come about in history and always to the dismay of those around him.

>>18113044
>Because the Ubermensch has already come about in history and always to the dismay of those around him.
So the arrival of the Ubermensch is not a revelatory, cataclysmic event whereby the universe is destroyed and begins anew? He's just another stone in the road, albeit bigger than the rest?

If Ubermenschen are so common, can it not be said that there are greater and lesser Ubermenschen?

>and always to the dismay of those around him.
It need not be all; always to the dismay of those who accuse them or make them feel resentment (not in the Nietzschean sense) or guilt, I would say.

Besides, his point that "the Ubermensch is the bleating of sheep" was this: how can someone accurately represent the Ubermensch, a being so far removed from "sheep-like" life, while himself being a sheep? Similarly- how can an ungodly man speak of God? How can a blind man speak of sight?

Or perhaps they can speak of the Ubermensch because the Ubermensch is of the highest nature, and they possess some measure of high nature in them (thus theorizing that the Ubermensch is what they are, to an extreme)?

>>18113083
>If Ubermenschen are so common, can it not be said that there are greater and lesser Ubermenschen?
Who said they were common? They can be counted on one hand.

>how can someone accurately represent the Ubermensch, a being so far removed from "sheep-like" life, while himself being a sheep?
Nietzsche =/= Nietzsche's philosophy. You also have to consider that Zarathustra was a prophet, not the Ubermensch himself. Assuming that's what you meant here.

>Or perhaps they can speak of the Ubermensch because the Ubermensch is of the highest nature, and they possess some measure of high nature in them (thus theorizing that the Ubermensch is what they are, to an extreme)?
Yes. They represent fragments of him, and piece by piece they offer themselves to build him. This is pretty basic stuff covered in Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

>>18112762
>purpose of making people more unequal between one another
That is untrue. The possibility of genetic modification and neural implants, for example, are the artifices of the slave which might finally allow him to compete with the natural, life-given superiority of the old masters. These, given the state of society as we know it, are mere tools for the will to equality (see On Tarantulas, TSZ).
>you asked for the Overman's precursors
By what logic then are they sacrificing themselves for the overman? As I've just said, they're sacrificing themselves more for the will to equality than anything else. I consider hardline Nazis who died in the battle against proletarian Bolshevism and bourgeois democracy closer to the overman's predecessors than any other men alive today. And I'm not one of the people who claim Nazism was a Nietzschean doctrine at heart either.
I wish I had the quote at hand by one of the postmodernists who stated that if Nazism was the only real political doctrine embodying Nietzsche's thought in any shape in the 20th century, there is something very troubling about the state of humanity (if anyone has this reference, post it please).
>We're talking about the future,
That's only partially right. We're speaking about the future with respect to the past and present, which we do know and largely understand. We've seen 2000 years of decline, which did not even begin with Christianity, and you are asserting that this pattern will change now... because Christianity has finally largely dissipated, giving way to an Epicurean hedonism at all levels of society? You're right, I cannot guarantee the future, but my point is that the future is heavily set, by almost all metrics, in a particular direction. Even if there is a hidden manipulator of the strings, who, despite his tendency to hide himself, happens to possess characteristics of the overman or his predecessor, the weight of numbers, history and realpolitik are stacked against him to a degree that is almost insurmountable. I would not place my bets on him, at least not given the state of the world as it is and the regression of history as we know it.

>>18109513
>Why didn't Nietzsche have the foresight to see that his style would be embraced by the herd?

>>18113128
>The possibility of genetic modification and neural implants, for example, are the artifices of the slave which might finally allow him to compete with the natural, life-given superiority of the old masters.
Igniting competition is the opposite of making everyone equal, because competitions don't end with equality among the competitors.

>You're right, I cannot guarantee the future, but my point is that the future is heavily set, by almost all metrics, in a particular direction.
Someone called me a defeatist before, but this is easily the most defeatist sentiment in the whole thread. You've resigned to accept a future that you likely feel is out of your control. With this attitude, it may happen; but with another, it might not, and if you can't muster another attitude, you can at the very least strive for others to muster it.

>I would not place my bets on him, at least not given the state of the world as it is and the regression of history as we know it.
Good for you, I don't care. But the Overman comes about precisely because of this state, so you are mistaken anyway.

>>18113128
>>18113205
Also, it's not slaves funding, inventing, and making use of genetics and neural implants and the like, that's an insane notion.

>>18109513
>the overman is just a genetically modified space marine

Well then why this faggot couldnt just put it simple like that instead of writing dozens of books.

>>18109513
the [OVERMAN] has [OVER]come his [MAN]ly desires

>>18113205
>Igniting competition
The whole theoretical purpose of gene editing and neural implants (and all other similar technology) is to level the human playing field, and make life EASIER for us. Go ask anyone working on this technology, if you can find them, if they're doing it to increase the risks of war, the potential for higher stakes conflict, and so forth. Their answer will be no, their affirmative answer will anchor around the first points I just gave; improving life, making it easier to "consume" information, there will be the natural security bonuses of further connecting human beings to the "internet of things", turning humans themselves into effective "things" rather than beings, and of course biometrics which can assist with improving lifespans. This is the extent of the purpose of their development. Of course, militaries will end up utilizing them as well for the purpose of warfare. Where does this bring us, however, apart from a space closer to annihilation? Wars are no longer that of two distinct beings clashing, but of almost unmanageable mechanistic and mathematically calculated powers clashing which are already far beyond any human individuality. They are what Nietzsche termed Leviathans in TSZ when speaking of the "state." Read Jünger for more on this.
>Someone called me a defeatist before, but this is easily the most defeatist sentiment in the whole thread.
It depends, the only practical hope of a future now is annihilation, or some other general reset which allows humanity to cast off the shackles, both intellectual and physical, of the history that has accumulated up to this point. This not defeatist, but merely a realistic understanding of the world as it is right now and will likely continue to be.
The other rare possibility is some sort of right wing reascendance, with far superior and more cultured foundations than the fascists ever had. I am fully in support of this possibility and support it by all means that I have at my disposal. Nevertheless, it's not conducive to harbor delusions about reality as you do. Delusions, and actions based upon delusions, can lead to the exact opposite result that was intended, which is why I have criticized your viewpoint as being a doctrine of the underman concealed as a doctrine of the overman.
>But the Overman comes about precisely because of this state,
Nietzsche does not say this anywhere, nor does it really make sense to assume by any means. I still have yet to see anyone explain how the overman is created out of total prevalence of the last men. In fact, Nietzsche even stated that the rise of the last men would likely create an environment too inhospitable for the mere possibility of the overman.

>>18113393
>Their answer will be no
You don't ask the labrats, you ask the project owners. And they won't answer you honestly. As I said before, any technology that uproots a civilization is not made for the creation of a last man society.

>the only practical hope of a future now is annihilation, or some other general reset which allows humanity to cast off the shackles, both intellectual and physical, of the history that has accumulated up to this point.
You say this and then dismiss radical new science and technologies that have the power to obliterate modern society as we know it from the ground up. Science and technology is currently the most realistic and practical means for achieving this annihilation of yours which is why there are those who invest in it yet do not care about increasing equality.

>Nietzsche does not say this anywhere, nor does it really make sense to assume by any means. I still have yet to see anyone explain how the overman is created out of total prevalence of the last men. In fact, Nietzsche even stated that the rise of the last men would likely create an environment too inhospitable for the mere possibility of the overman.
I can't get you any quotes now, maybe tomorrow. There is a reason why he advocated accelerating democracy though. It wasn't for democracy's sake. He embraced the leveling of Europe because it could be made an instrumental process in creating the Overman.

>>18113426
>And they won't answer you honestly.
How do we know they're not simply interested in plain old money and power, as they've always been? The bourgeoisie is bourgeois, I see no reason to assume they have suddenly developed a superior spirit. If anything, the opposite when you look at the degraded character of people like Elon Musk.
>He embraced the leveling of Europe because it could be made an instrumental process in creating the Overman.
This already occurred after WWII, and lo and behold, all it created were more last men in the place of what could have achieved something superior. Nietzsche was wrong about democracy, history has shown us that much. That, and "levelling Europe" through some sort of destruction is totally different to creating a hive of last men, which appears to be increasingly the case even after major catastrophes like WWII.

He knew. Why do you think that every freshman philosophy major thinks they're a fucking ubermensch or that they're highly developed along some other scale of another philosophy that suggests high levels of personal growth along an axis that they perceive as similar? People who sell pyramid schemes rely on the same mentality to hook people that leads them to think that they are these things.

>>18113469
>How do we know they're not simply interested in plain old money and power, as they've always been?
Do you really think that the most dangerous and intellectually demanding technologies with the highest potential to destroy modern civilization are being made in the service of modern civilization and its tendency towards materialistic comfort?

>This already occurred after WWII, and lo and behold, all it created were more last men in the place of what could have achieved something superior.
We aren't even over the real hurdles yet. Governments and fiat currencies are still in control. The leveling is ongoing. Nietzsche has yet to have been proven wrong by history on this.

Nietzsche is:
-an atheist [there is no god]
-an anti-christian [like any marxist, FUCK THE PRIESTS AMIRITE]
-a nihilist [there is no truth]
-an hedonist [Only this life matters!!1 live in the present moment to coom like my dancing vitalist idol, the great dyonisus!! teehee]
-a postmodernist [values don't exist but reality doesn't matter bro!!! Just become le heckin uberman, sink further into delusion, create your own values and fight for them until you die!!]

You believe you're a woman? You go giiiiiirl, nobody can tell you otherwise, period!!!

yeah no wonder that lefty/lit/ trannies shill his diarrhea all the fucking time

>>18113589
Weak bait. Try it on another board where people don't read.

>>18113574
>Do you really think that the most dangerous and intellectually demanding technologies with the highest potential to destroy modern civilization are being made in the service of modern civilization and its tendency towards materialistic comfort?
It's right before your eyes, dude, literally. What are you doing right now?
>Nietzsche has yet to have been proven wrong by history on this.
The collapse of Weimar and WWII proved him wrong.

>>18113615
>It's right before your eyes, dude, literally.
This doesn't answer my question. You trust your eyes too much when you should be thinking critically about what such science and technology can be used for.

>The collapse of Weimar and WWII proved him wrong.
These things weren't related to him. They were part of the last gasps of a naive yet well intended aristocracy. The new aristocracy is ways off yet because the leveling process isn't done.

>>18109513
Haven't you read Thus Spoke Zarathustra? There are several moments in which he acknowledges that, and with much scorn attacks those that do that.

bump

>>18109623
>russell

>>18113857
So why'd he do it?

>>18117149
Do what

>>18117170
you know...it...