Talk:Übermensch/Archive 1

message: I think there needs to be some quotes/translations to back up of the interpretations of the Overman placed in this article.  This will contribute to the overhaul.  Zarathustra has some excellent references.--Knucmo2 22:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should go for it. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Backup from the man himself

message: Where in Zarathustra, or anywhere in Nietzsche's writings, does he claim a "will to destruction"? Also:  I believe "Overman" is the best translation.  The "uber" in the word is meant to go along with the "overcoming" theme of the rest of Nietzsche's work.  Superman is a poor translation, not really what I think he intended.  The "Overman" is one who "Overcomes". --DanielCD 19:47, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  A reference in the "Will to Destruction" section would be helpful, I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere else.  I think it might be better to mention the "three metamorphoses" rather than, or at least in addition to, "Will to Destruction" and "Will to Power".  I plan on doing some more research and making these changes at some point. Mixx 21:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will to Destruction 

message: :"... The inescapable reference is that the American comic book character Superman was originally intended to be a powerful villain and hence was closer to the Nietzschean usage, though of course in no profound manner. ..."
I for one find it easy to escape this odd notion, though the right way to rewrite the paragraph is harder. —wwoods 00:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superman 

message: "More recently, Kim Newman's short story Übermensch deliberately combined the two words with an alternative history in which Superman was brought up in Germany and eventually imprisoned as a Nazi."
Is this really notable enough(with respect to philosophy) to belong in the article on the Nietzschean übermensch? The Bulwer-Lytton example illustrates the usage of "superman" as a literary term; the mention of the short story doesn't seem to have a similar function. Furthermore, Newman's short story, though it indeed would seem to be an example of using both terms in one work, seems out of place - firstly, because Superman(the comic book character) is completely irrelevant to the article, and secondly, because the work isn't even claimed to be notable in its treatment of Nietzsche's philosophy.
84.48.89.5 01:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'll remove it, hadn't noticed it. I moved it to Talk:Kim Newman to be dealt with. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kim Newman 

message: This article states that anti-semitism is "absent" in Nietzsche's writings.  While I certainly agree within the context of this statement that his work was misappropriated by the Nazis, and that he devoted a great deal of time and energy arguing against anti-semitism, racism in general, and nationalism, to say that anti-semitism is altogether absent is misleading.  His earlier writings and many of his letters clearly display anti-semitic tendencies that are later abandoned, complicated, or transformed as his philosophical ideas changed and he rejected--in large part--the influence of Wagner (and others).  I would recommend changing the article slightly to account for this complexity and ambiguity (though maintaining that he was misused by the Nazis, in large part due to his sister).--MS
* I was about to say more or less the same and noticed this already here. Nietzsche's views on the Jews were complicated: even in his mature writing, his animus toward Christianity played out at times (in lesser degree) against the Jews as the people among whom Christianity spawned. This was not at all the exterminationist anti-semitism of the Nazis, but the current wording—that the very "concept" is "absent" is an overstatement. I'll give a few days for someone else who has been involved in the article to take this on, but if no one responds, I will edit. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:27, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
*Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say, (at least in his mature works, clearly Wagner lead him astray early on), that he blasted the philosophical tenents of the Jewish religion, rather than the Jews themselves? He certainly despised Christian theology, but wasn't racist towards Europeans. Spaltavian 01:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Semitism 

message: The passage that begins "However, another problem is that when the Ubermensch lives according to his Will to Power… doesn't particularly sound to me like Nietzsche. Is it cited from somewhere? If no one can answer that in the next 48 hours, I will cut it to the talk page. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source? 

message: Some of this article is incomprehensible. The lead is fine, but then it plunges off into obscurity. Just as an example, consider the following paragraph:
Nietzsche's motivation for the claim 'God is dead' is the destruction of the Christian conscience, i.e., a God-centered way of thinking, and the fateful will to break out. His symbols for this are flame and thunder. Only by breaking out of the idealistic norms one can become Übermensch, which literally means "beyond human." The initial point of destruction is the church, which is, according to Nietzsche, the exact opposite of what Jesus preached. The reason for this is a process initiated by the apostle Paul, which caused a transfiguration of Jesus' teachings to a remedy-punishment doctrine.  Zarathustra was the prototype for Nietzsche's Übermensch.
*"Nietzsche's motivation for the claim 'God is dead' is the destruction of the Christian conscience, i.e., a God-centered way of thinking…" - so far, so good
*"…and the fateful will to break out." "fateful" according to whom? (Nietzsche?) Whose… fate? To "break out of what"? 
* "His symbols for this are flame and thunder." Symbols for the death of God? or for the will? or what?
*"Only by breaking out of the idealistic norms one can become Übermensch, which literally means 'beyond human.'" - fine
* "The initial point of destruction is the church, which is, according to Nietzsche, the exact opposite of what Jesus preached." - "The initial point of destruction": utterly unclear. The first thing the Übermensch must destroy, perhaps? And I'd expect upper-case Church (the institution) not an individual church. And what is "the exact opposite of what Jesus preached"? I presume present-day (well, then-present-day) organized Christianity, but the way this reads, you'd have to know that coming in.
* "The reason for this is a process initiated by the apostle Paul, which caused a transfiguration of Jesus' teachings to a remedy-punishment doctrine." "Remedy-punishment doctrine" is very awkward. Perhaps it is just an error for "reward-punishment doctrine"? Or perhaps it means to say something else entirely.
*"Zarathustra was the prototype for Nietzsche's Übermensch." How "thus"? He hasn't even been mentioned so far!
Anyway, that seems to be about par for this article. I suggest that either someone with knowledge and references can use its structure and rewrite heavily, or we can toss it and start over, because the present article does our readers a disservice. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-evaluating or destroying old articles 

message: The article currently says: No to a great man, not to a "superman" per se, but to something above man, greater. Something separate from and greater than man. Many scholars believe[citation needed] that the Übermensch is a psychological change, and in fact it involves a major psychological change; but it is in fact[citation needed] not only a mindset shift but a genetic shift. Why else, if this were not true, would Zarathustra go into Man's past, to Apes: "What is the ape to men? A laughing-stock or a painful embarrassment. And just so shall men be to the Superman: a laughing-stock or a painful embarrassment."
The interpretation of the Overman as something genetically different from normal man is weird. I've never come across it anywhere else, although it does smack of Nazi eugenics and the Herrenvolk concept in Nazi ideology. Seems quite doubtful to me, given that Nietzsche seemed to think that a normal man could himself (and not just his descendants) become an Overman. Sounds like this section needs a lot of cleaning up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkberg (talk • contribs) 13 Jan 2006
: I would be inclined to clean it up with an eraser. -- Jmabel | Talk
:: I second the eraser suggestion. In the first place, this section seems to advocate the positions it purports to describe - both its reading of Nietsche ('many scholars believe... but it is in fact...') and the views it treats as his ('He calls us to become a step into the right direction... the Future is the Overman, we are merely a strand in a great rope that leads to the Overman. "Let your will say: The Superman shall be the meaning of the earth!"'). Secondly, POV issues aside, readings of the Übermensch concept belong in the body of the article, not in their own sections (the article should not argue against itself). And finally, as Monkberg suggests, the idea of a genetically distinctive Übermensch doesn't sit easily with Nietsche's own account. I've never seen such a reading seriously proposed either. I shall delete in a day or so if there's no objection/radical edit in the meantime. Whortleberry 05:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Callings of Nietzsche. 

message: :Nietzsche had an admiration of Napoleon Bonaparte and Julius Caesar, and advocated an authoritarian united Europe.
Can I have a citation for this? Nietzsche styled himself apolitical. — goethean ॐ 23:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WRT Napoleon, N describes him as a "synthesis of Unmensch (inhuman) and Übermensch" at the end of section 16 of Genealogy of Morals. I wouldn't exactly call that 'admiration', but it's clearly a recognition of an element of greatness in Napoleon's makeup. I think N mentions him elsewhere, but I can't remember where it is or what he says. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: In The Will to Power (i.e., from his Nachlass; trans. Walter Kaufmann), in sect. 1017 and passim, Nietzsche annotated on Napoleon in similar form to sect. 16 of Genealogy of Morals: The struggle against the eighteenth century: its supreme overcoming by Goethe and Napoleon. Schopenhauer, too, struggles against it; but he involuntarily steps back into the seventeenth century—he is a modern Pascal, with Pascalian value judgments without Christianity. Schopenhauer was not strong enough for a new Yes. Napoleon: insight that the higher and the terrible man necessarily belong together. The "man" reinstated [i.e., rather than the Christian "good man" and the "socialist ideal" (stated previously in sect. 1017)]; the woman again accorded her due tribute of contempt and fear. "Totality" as health and highest activity; the straight line, the grand style in action rediscovered; the most powerful instinct, that of life itself, the lust to rule [i.e., "the will to power"], affirmed. Then in sect. 1026 as a kind of forethought in light of his "inhuman" character: Such men as Napoleon must come again and again and confirm the belief in the autocracy of the individual: but he himself was corrupted by the means he had to employ and lost noblesse of character. If he had had to prevail among a different kind of man he could have employed other means; and it would thus not seem to be a necessity for a Caesar to become bad [my italics for this last phrase]. Very revealing indeed. Whatever the case, Nietzsche was far from being an "authoritarian" and that is most certainly not indicated by his extolments about Napoleon. Added to this would be a reading of Goethe's views on Napoleon, which may be found in Conversations with Eckermann. In short, out with the false statement: "advocated an authoritarian united Europe". It is a miscalculation, perhaps even (consciously or unconsciously) under the guise of Fascist-Nazi ideology, for which we are no longer naive enough to accept as remotely plausible. In any event, it may be fruitful to recognize his statement on "[woman's] due tribute" in addition to his view on Schopenhauer à la Pascal.ignisscripta 20:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Would you be able to give me the exact date of the fragment (sect.1026 - I don't use an English edition and mines are classed by date)? I would really be interested by it. Thanks in advance. Lapaz 20:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most certainly. Sect. 1026 is under Summer-Fall 1883, while—for sake of interest—sect. 1017 is Spring-Fall 1887. (I in this consideration corrected a minor mistake within my post above, which necessarily alters neither the appurtances of the posed concretions in my previous entry nor the intended meaning but the chronological sequence during which instance the notes were written.)ignisscripta 01:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  nietzsche -- authoritarian? 

message: This page appears to have an unresolved commentary on itself presented as part of the text. Someone with the correct authority should correct this.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.229.126 (talk • contribs) 
Moved from article by Camillus (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment moved here from article

message: I've removed that statement. I remember Nietzsche saying in one of his writings that traditional, imperialistic and powerful European states should be destroyed in favour of smaller ones. I'll look it up to see in exactly which text he says that. --GTubio 17:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  and advocated an authoritarian united Europe. 

message: While this is not uninteresting, I removed it on the grounds that we are not discussing the Nazi' ideology of Aryanism, but the Nazi instrumentalization of Nietzsche's philosophy & in particular of the "Overman" (this is why Alfred Baümler is quoted, as he was one of the main "philosopher" against whom Heidegger "battled"): "One of the goals set by Hitler was to assign Heinrich Hemmlar, the commander of the SS, in uncovering evidence that germans is the Aryan race.  Archeology played am important role in the early beginnings of the SS." The other addition by same user was "He believes this dualism, the deitification and the demonization in religion, is hindering our evolution to the overman.", which I left but also find discutable, since it's speaks of an "evolution to the overman" - Nietzsche never thought the overman as a future for the human specie, but only as a future possibility for some individuals. See Pierre Klossowski's quotes on his passages about the "future tyrants of Europe". Lapaz 15:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Slighty out of date and ill-tempered statement. There's no e at the end of Übermensch, and double-spacing is bad typographic form unless you're actually using a typewriter. --GoodIntentionstalk 07:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archeology & Heinrich Hemmlar 

message: Although I understand why Igni or another decided to introduce the "transhumanistic", and righty did it with caution, I think further precautions should be taken. Mainly, stating that Nietzsche' Übermensch has prettly little to do with technological enhancement: he's not talking about a "cyborg", is he? Maybe if we added something like: to pose values for centuries to come, or in this vein? Lapaz 23:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Transhumanism cultivates the academic study of the possibilities and consequences of developing and using human enhancement techniques and other emerging technologies for these purposes." reads the entry... I'm not sure Nietzsche really spoke about that, although of course one could interpret him in this way, as in other ways. Lapaz 23:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that's what the article states, I heard you. What I'm asking if, shouldn't we be extra cautious adding another disclaimer, mainly relating to the technological "post-human" cyborg dream that is in the "transhumanism" term. Let's not forget that this is very popular and we do not know exactly who is reading: without even speaking about the people with no philosophical background, young & very young people may read this, as well as people from far-away countries who have little understanding of this, and, as in my case, people whose English is not perfect. This to say that I didn't really understand your question "is this 'transhumanistic' feature accurate à propos the common idea"?; are you asking if this definition of transhumanism which I cut-pasted is not accurate, as a popular culture stereotype? I know Peter Sloterdijk got purposefully misinterpreted by Habermas & the media when he started talking about such subjects, but I'm not sure I really understood you on that point. To insist again: it is all fine for me to make a link to "transhumanism", but I do think that the speaking precautions you took are well-advised, but would need a more in-depth contradiction based on Nietzsche's philosophy: that's why I brought up the "foundation of the values" issue. Nietzsche's has been enough misinterpreted in the past that we needn't be wary of taking "too much" precautions... Lapaz 23:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I see that this sentence has been on for a while. I first thought you had add it. So you're asking me if it's at all relevant? No, I don't really think it's worth linking to a page like that, it's an association of ideas that is just... too much. Lapaz 23:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Shouldn't it be rather moved in "popular acceptions of the term" subsection?  Lapaz 00:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You asked: "are you asking if this definition of transhumanism which I cut-pasted is not accurate, as a popular culture stereotype?" My answer: not precisely; I'm asking whether "transhumanism" is the popular, common understanding of the term Übermensch, disregarding Nietzsche's meaning (which is not transhumanistic but much more complex), or not. In response to your latest post, I think that would be the best placement for it, if the answer to my question is answered affirmatively as the case of the matter. — ignis scripta 21:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, that is an etymologically sufficient translation of the term, but my question in actuality relates to the concept of transhumanism, and your answer is supportive of this. Essentially, I think the note should be moved to popular conceptions of the term Übermensch in the article. — ignis scripta 21:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just made a slight change to the claim about transhumanistic -- saying it's "one", not "the" contemporary version of this ideal. But I agree it should be moved to "popular conceptions", if it should remain at all. --Cultural Freedom talk 08:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Transhumanistic]]? 

message: Nietzsche has criticized Spencer and social darwinism many times, maybe if someone has a few moments he could find a quote to justify this much-needed precision? Lapaz 00:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herbert Spencer 

message: What is it about this topic that draws pretentious pedantry: "In the understanding of this concept, however, one has to recall…" 
Don't tell the reader how they "have to" think. Just state the case. - Jmabel | Talk 23:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pretentious pedantry 

message: From the lead: "Therefore, the Übermensch has also been interpreted as a temporary state of the multiple wills to power composing this individual 'fiction'." As usual, passive voice hides agency. Who has made this interpretation? - Jmabel | Talk 23:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passive voice hides agency