S00per M4n

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Nietzsche
  3. » S00per M4n

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2010 12:15 pm
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2010 01:21 pm
@GoshisDead,
I am sure that someone will twist things to say no, but if we look at the terms:

Sociopath:

Quote:
a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.


Sociopath | Definition of Sociopath at Dictionary.com:

One might also want to look at:

Psychopathy | Definition of Psychopathy at Dictionary.com:

Psychopathy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A quote from Ecce Homo (as quoted by Wikipedia):

Quote:


 
Deckard
 
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2010 01:35 pm
@Pyrrho,
I tend to agree but that Ubermensch is a sociopath but I also want to point out that this is the same as saying that Ubermensch is "evil" in more modern terms. Nietzsche would likely say that these categories of sane and sociopath are just part of our modern version of the slave morality based on psychology and sociology. I think Hannibal Lecter was written as a sort Ubermensch character - extremely intelligent and willful but unencumbered by any moral concept of right and wrong.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2010 01:37 pm
@Pyrrho,
This is directly along the lines of what I was thinking. I wonder why Neiztche would glorify it when everyone else seems villify it. I can see being jealous of someone who is not a slave to conscience but I also having one (I hope) would not want to be without one.
 
jgweed
 
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2010 01:41 pm
@GoshisDead,
"A psychopath is not the same as an antisocial personality. Antisocial personalities may or may not be psychopathic. The antisocial personality is primarily a problem involving a failure to respect the right of individuals, the law and rules of society. Psychopathy involves poor emotional intelligence, the lack of conscience, and an inability to feel attached to people except in terms of their value as a source of stimulation or new possessions."
(
Psychopathic Personality)

I think the distinction between anti-social and psychopathic is an important one. It may well be, that in rejecting common values as symptoms of decay and disease, the Ubermensch is anti-social, but that does not mean that the Ubermensch, for example, does not have a very demanding and clear conscience guiding him through life, nor that he values people as a means to the end of accumulation of wealth. A rejection of common values by which one lives, then, is not a rejection of values in one's life.


 
Arjuna
 
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2010 02:53 pm
@jgweed,
Nietzche's depiction of two tight-rope walkers suggests two versions of the Fool (Parsifal.) Percival, being one of the knights to find the Holy Grail, represents revelation through being unbound by the past.

Nietzche seems to say that even though his language suggests mystical revelation, he was just being tricky. He spits on mysticism the way he spits on pretty much everything.

Though he seemed to be talking about social evolution, again he was just being tricky. Humanity in general get his spit.

Maybe he's mostly loved because of misinterpretation. There's no "everything's going to be ok" in Nietzche... only thunder.
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2010 04:00 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;124738 wrote:
Nietzche's depiction of two tight-rope walkers suggests two versions of the Fool (Parsifal.) Percival, being one of the knights to find the Holy Grail, represents revelation through being unbound by the past.

Nietzche seems to say that even though his language suggests mystical revelation, he was just being tricky. He spits on mysticism the way he spits on pretty much everything.

Though he seemed to be talking about social evolution, again he was just being tricky. Humanity in general get his spit.

Maybe he's mostly loved because of misinterpretation. There's no "everything's going to be ok" in Nietzche... only thunder.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2010 05:15 pm
@Pyrrho,
Pyrrho;124761 wrote:
I do appreciate his poetry.

If he was writing for the Ubermensch, what was his message? Just in case you're confused, this is your background?

I've been pondering something economist Lawrence Summers said. He suggested that in our time, the most important actions a government can take to secure the health of its society in the long-term are to shore up the position of the middle-class. In thinking about why this is, this occured to me:

A society with a healthy middle-class is strong for several reasons:

1. When people think opportunity is before them, they love stability. They need social stability so they can see where their opportunities lead. This kind of stability can't be bought with any amount of police force... because it comes from the desires of the people.

2. A healthy middle-class believes in prosperity now and in the future.

3. Stability, prosperity, and communication are the prime ingredients of innovation. These are the conditions in which good ideas come out of people's basements and into the light. One good idea bounces off another... snowballing. Technology offers to release human life from the need for slavery.

4. Where there is opportunity, women have a greater chance to become educated and contribute to their worlds in ways other than childbirth. One feature of the modern "core" nations is that population growth rates are close to zero (in France, it's negative.. or was last time I looked.)

So there appears here a pattern of life that in many ways is self-reinforcing. It's a relatively stable society with zero population growth. Could this pattern become the prevailing pattern of life in our world?

Thinking philosophically, the main obstacle would be this: in societies that enjoy this pattern of life now, secularism is firmly rooted: secured by the need for tolerance. Tolerance is one of the prime virtues in these societies. One could argue that this actually stems from the demand for stability I mentioned. Secularism is a religion-killer. It creates a vantage point from which a religion can be seen from the outside. When people begin to see their religion from the outside, that religion is headed for the museum. Thusly nihilism plagues the societies of the core nations. A pattern of life that comes with built-in nihilism won't become the prevailing pattern of human life. It's not possible.

The Ubermensch, on the other hand, is free of both religion and nihilism. Since he freely creates his own world, one assumes he also creates the pattern that he fits into. I did actually have a point here. Sorry if it doesn't seem like it.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Thu 4 Feb, 2010 11:37 am
@Arjuna,
So N wrote somewhat like a How-to manual. Like "The Idiots Guide to Becoming a Sociopath" Or "Sociopathy for Dummies"?
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Thu 4 Feb, 2010 12:08 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;124906 wrote:
So N wrote somewhat like a How-to manual. Like "The Idiots Guide to Becoming a Sociopath" Or "Sociopathy for Dummies"?
Hilarious! I read somewhere that sociopathology can result from a lack of human interaction around the age of three years. Some kids would be better off with a she-wolf than in our care.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 02:02 am
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;124786 wrote:

I've been pondering something economist Lawrence Summers said. He suggested that in our time, the most important actions a government can take to secure the health of its society in the long-term are to shore up the position of the middle-class. In thinking about why this is, this occured to me:

A society with a healthy middle-class is strong for several reasons:

1. When people think opportunity is before them, they love stability. They need social stability so they can see where their opportunities lead. This kind of stability can't be bought with any amount of police force... because it comes from the desires of the people.

2. A healthy middle-class believes in prosperity now and in the future.

3. Stability, prosperity, and communication are the prime ingredients of innovation. These are the conditions in which good ideas come out of people's basements and into the light. One good idea bounces off another... snowballing. Technology offers to release human life from the need for slavery.

4. Where there is opportunity, women have a greater chance to become educated and contribute to their worlds in ways other than childbirth. One feature of the modern "core" nations is that population growth rates are close to zero (in France, it's negative.. or was last time I looked.)

So there appears here a pattern of life that in many ways is self-reinforcing. It's a relatively stable society with zero population growth. Could this pattern become the prevailing pattern of life in our world?

Thinking philosophically, the main obstacle would be this: in societies that enjoy this pattern of life now, secularism is firmly rooted: secured by the need for tolerance. Tolerance is one of the prime virtues in these societies. One could argue that this actually stems from the demand for stability I mentioned. Secularism is a religion-killer. It creates a vantage point from which a religion can be seen from the outside. When people begin to see their religion from the outside, that religion is headed for the museum. Thusly nihilism plagues the societies of the core nations. A pattern of life that comes with built-in nihilism won't become the prevailing pattern of human life. It's not possible.

The Ubermensch, on the other hand, is free of both religion and nihilism. Since he freely creates his own world, one assumes he also creates the pattern that he fits into.


This is a great post. I would only object to the last point, or rather embellish it. The Uber-guy would always already be embedded in a language and its dominant metaphors/conceptions. He could seemingly only "create" himself by re-arranging these parts as self-consciousness, detachment, and his will to transcend would allow. Except of course for the presumed creative power an Ubermensch would have. Is ethical innovation (as theory) still possible? Or are ethics not his concern. A twist on Freud: what does Superman want? Kojeve paints the Wise Man as perfectly satisfied. Is there something un-heroic about need? Is this the trouble with Nietzsche, who is no doubt a genius? The conflict between perfection as the stasis of satisfaction and an active perfection that wants to change the world. Or is the Superman a child at play, as Heraclitus might figure in. God is children playing dice. That is an indulgently errant memory I'm afraid.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Nietzsche
  3. » S00per M4n
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 03/05/2024 at 07:25:10