|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:15 pm
Who do you think fits the description of Nietzches Superman? It can be anyone living, dead, or fictional.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:32 am
Well, as I understand it, his Superman had more to do with a great character, not super powers. So I think that John F. Kennedy would fit, as well as Ghandi, Mother Thereasa, the Pope, and Abraham Lincoln. And I know how ironic it is that I, an athiest, have mostly religious heros.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:43 pm
well i have not read much Nietzche or about his Übermensch though i am familiar with the concept so i will try and answer from my own perspective though it may not fit fully. The superman as i understand is more than a man of great character but a man who has evolved to a higher stage of being. perhaps like Carlos Castaneda's Don Juan, or Sri Aurobindo, Ken Wilber's integral vision, or the great masters of India as mentioned, among other sources, by Paramahansa Yogananda in his Autobiography of a Yogi. buddha and jesus would no doubt also fit this category as well as the boddhisattvas, and certainly if any most of those who achieve higher levels are unseen, unknown and not remembered in any way except locally by those whose lives they have touched. it is one thing to have great character, many men have had great character, they have developed their egos to a level of strength notable to those who behold them, both saints and criminals of which the lines between the two are a matter of perspective. I think to become as a superman one must not only develop the ego but also transcend it, become more than what we appear to be. this makes it difficult to recognize, we see these people and all that we can detect is great character, but there is something unseen, or not easily seen or recorded that makes these people Super.
like i said, this is my perspective based on only a little knowledge of the theory.
good day
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:59 pm
LoreWren Well, as I understand it, his Superman had more to do with a great character, not super powers. So I think that John F. Kennedy would fit, as well as Ghandi, Mother Thereasa, the Pope, and Abraham Lincoln. And I know how ironic it is that I, an athiest, have mostly religious heros. I would agree with Ghandi because anyone with a will strong enough to starve themselves for as long as he did is something that fits the superman description very well. Even if The Pope was an example I doubt Nietzche would recognize him as one simply because of his hatred for the church and the "slave morality" it promotes, same with Mother Therease. I may be wrong but I think it has more to do with will power and rising above the herd mentality that keeps great men down than it does having great character. I would say Napolean and Ernest Hemingway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:25 am
alliop LoreWren Well, as I understand it, his Superman had more to do with a great character, not super powers. So I think that John F. Kennedy would fit, as well as Ghandi, Mother Thereasa, the Pope, and Abraham Lincoln. And I know how ironic it is that I, an athiest, have mostly religious heros. I would agree with Ghandi because anyone with a will strong enough to starve themselves for as long as he did is something that fits the superman description very well. Even if The Pope was an example I doubt Nietzche would recognize him as one simply because of his hatred for the church and the "slave morality" it promotes, same with Mother Therease. I may be wrong but I think it has more to do with will power and rising above the herd mentality that keeps great men down than it does having great character. I would say Napolean and Ernest Hemingway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:37 pm
I know some people are goign to look at me and say "what the hell!?" but I honestly think early pioneers of the computer industry (like Bill Gates) would meet his standards for the superman.
They had very strong will power staying up for days at a time writing code and rose above the average man by defining their own work hours and working on their own time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 9:51 pm
what about the idea that we are all to evolve into superman? The concept being applicable to everyone not just the heros
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 8:59 am
heros are the examples of the potential that we all possess. they can be used as exemplars, archetypes, containers of patterns which we may try to emulate in our own lives.
the discussion has brought up a question which i think is important to this topic; we all have our opinions, but what is the objective standard for applying this title? where is the threshold? i dont beleive that just because someone is well thought of, or did something that seems amazing it would make them evolved Ubermensh. i think it is a state of being not just a value or accomplishment, it is something that you are, not a title conferred. in other languages they could be considered integral beings, disciplined and living with integrity. do you think that of all the people mentioned? are they supermen, one step above, or just exemplary men.
i suppose the ultimate answer will come with, how far do you think that humans can go? that will define what you will recognize as higher states.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:54 am
I thought the Superman was one that men were supposed to create, not what they were going to become.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:19 am
LoreWren I thought the Superman was one that men were supposed to create, not what they were going to become. sometimes it is hard to make distinctions on such things when reading translated texts, for example, many people think that "superman" does not embody the meaning of Ubermensch, some prefer to use the german word, others use "overman". besides how different is becoming and creating? Ubermensch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:01 pm
nuttybeijos what about the idea that we are all to evolve into superman? The concept being applicable to everyone not just the heros Sperman is not something that humans are supposed to physicaly evolve into.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 11:07 pm
AbrAbraxas LoreWren I thought the Superman was one that men were supposed to create, not what they were going to become. sometimes it is hard to make distinctions on such things when reading translated texts, for example, many people think that "superman" does not embody the meaning of Ubermensch, some prefer to use the german word, others use "overman". besides how different is becoming and creating? Ubermensch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 7:11 am
alliop nuttybeijos what about the idea that we are all to evolve into superman? The concept being applicable to everyone not just the heros Sperman is not something that humans are supposed to physicaly evolve into. why not? and lorewren, what i am saying is, dont we also create who and what we are? and in reading translated material you have to have an open mind, because you do not know that the translator knows what is in the mind of a long dead philosopher and that philosophers often make new uses for words that already exist and a strict translation may not convey the novel use employed by the author.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:11 am
((Warning: Read entire post, do not stop halfway!!!))
In "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", Zarathustra mentions the Overman as one who would reject the philosophies of old, lead the people out of ignorance, etc. I believe the parameters that have been previously said are far too open. Otherwise, one could consider even Hitler to be an overman. He rejected the previous German goverment, replacing it with a socialist goverment, He led a mass of people, claiming he was leading them away from thier tainted ways, and he was hated by the common people outside of Germany. I am not a Neo-Nazi, so I refuse to have the parameters set so thin. I believe that there has not been an overman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:50 pm
the superman concept is really quite simple though there is a lot of misinterpretation due to the "mystical" way Nietzsche wrote (which was mainly done for sardonic purposes).
The superman is someone who has realized that there is no set meaning or direction or purpose or ethics to life. The superman realizes this, and yet does not fall into the abyss of nihilism. Instead, he fashions his own meanings and directions and purposes..but is not entangled by them. He wears them - he dances with them - he delights in the beauty of them ..and it is this delight in beauty that is the real pleasure in life (this idea came from Nietzsche's unofficial predecessor, Schopenhauer).
Who is like that? too many to name...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
