Nietschze's philosophy isn't supposed to be representative of a utopia, it's supposed to represent the inner nature of humans, and their potential for evolution. Nietschze was of the belief that when someone is striving for a "peaceful" state, they are merely undone by their antithetical "waking" state of self-improvement and work. Thus caught in the endless cycle between beast and overman. (Thus Spoke Zarathustra). In this same book Nietschze also shows that he would rather break the sheeple away from the flock rather than dominate or lead them, and he shows clear contempt for tyrannical leaders. The overman is clearly a metaphysical concept, I don't think there is a concrete literal reality behind the idea that Nietschze invented, or some subliminal advocacy for mass extermination. The will to power is not just some political or personal power. Nietschze even considers meditation a form of will to power (over self), many have construed his argument as some sort of Machiavellian strategem for revenge which a resentful Nietschze cooked up, which is rather unfair to the man. He had his flaws just like any other person, and it may be reflected in his writing, but it is not the foundations of his axiomatic truths that he lays out. The ubermensch does not have any clear moral structure, rather it is a child seeing things for the first time and making a new moral structure, which might be entirely akin to what you believe is the way a human should live. However he believes these beings should renounce archaic beliefs (i.e. Christianity) in order to fully live of this world. Those who are able to detach themselves from their inner sickness and see the world with an unblemished lens, are neither better nor worse than the flock. They are merely "over" the boundaries of normal human limitations, because that is the literal translation of ubermensch: over-man". I'm not the most fervent Nietschze reader, (going through beyond good and evil now), so I'll leave the argumentation to the more knowledgeable readers,
And, hey, you're an idiot... I felt since you made an observation, I should do the same. lol jk. Name-Calling is not allowed here. - KSR
“What is the greatest thing ye can experience? It is the hour of great contempt. The hour in which even your happiness becometh loathsome unto you, and so also your reason and virtue. The hour when ye say: “What good is my happiness! It is poverty and pollution and wretched self-complacency. But my happiness should justify existence itself!†The hour when ye say: “What good is my reason! Doth it long for knowledge as the lion for his food? It is poverty and pollution and wretched self-complacency!†The hour when ye say: “What good is my virtue! As yet it hath not made me passionate. How weary I am of my good and my bad! It is all poverty and pollution and wretched self-complacency!†The hour when ye say: “What good is my justice! I do not see that I am fervour and fuel. The just, however, are fervour and fuel!†The hour when we say: “What good is my pity! Is not pity the cross on which he is nailed who loveth man? But my pity is not a crucifixion.†Have ye ever spoken thus? Have ye ever cried thus? Ah! Would that I had heard you crying thus! It is not your sin-it is your self-satisfaction that crieth unto heaven; your very sparingness in sin crieth unto heaven!†“Where is the lightning to lick you with its tongue? Where is the frenzy with which ye should be inoculated? Lo, I teach you the Ubermensch: he is that lightning, he is that frenzy!†– Friedrich Nietzsche, “Thus Spake; Zarathustra†Page 23. Commons version.
"Injustice and filth cast they at the lonesome one: but, my brother, if thou wouldst be a star, thou must shine for them none the less on that account! And be on thy guard against the good and just! They would fain crucify those who devise their own virtue- they hate the lonesome ones. Be on thy guard, also, against holy simplicity! All is unholy to it that is not simple; fain, likewise, would it play with the fire" - Friedrich Nietzsche. "Thus Spake; Zarathustra" Page 67. Commons version.
I thought his philosophy was of a dickhead type of status..I do find true Whenever I climb I am followed by a dog called 'Ego'. So Postal got bant', huh? I saw that he was not prowling here anymore..haha. He could make some good arguments..He was like a dog with a bone..haha, How did he get banned? Postal was always pretty good at sidestepping anger mode.
""HOW COULD anything originate out of its opposite? For example, truth out of error? or the Will to Truth out of the will to deception? or the generous deed out of selfishness? or the pure sun-bright vision of the wise man out of covetousness? Such genesis is impossible; whoever dreams of it is a fool, nay, worse than a fool; things of the highest value must have a different origin, an origin of THEIR own--in this transitory, seductive, illusory, paltry world, in this turmoil of delusion and cupidity, they cannot have their source. But rather in the lap of Being, in the intransitory, in the concealed God, in the 'Thing-in-itself--THERE must be their source, and nowhere else!"--This mode of reasoning discloses the typical prejudice by which metaphysicians of all times can be recognized, this mode of valuation is at the back of all their logical procedure; through this "belief" of theirs, they exert themselves for their "knowledge," for something that is in the end solemnly christened "the Truth." The fundamental belief of metaphysicians is THE BELIEF IN ANTITHESES OF VALUES. It never occurred even to the wariest of them to doubt here on the very threshold (where doubt, however, was most necessary); though they had made a solemn vow, "DE OMNIBUS DUBITANDUM."
Yes-such a wry sense of humor...The stone thread was especially clever. We got into a few discussions about our different beliefs..but I don't think we 'argued'. He was decent about not getting personal. He just stayed with putting the other person on the spot.That thread deserves bumping.
I take it you're referring to "Thus Spoke Zarathustra"? I like some parts of it and disliked others, like the sexist verses. But should we demonize an entire text based on a few lines we find immoral? Or should we choose some parts we like and simply ignore the rest? That's not a rhetorical question.
Nietzsche was a Philosopher who like many that came before him..made a general commentary about the current Zeitgeist in which he lived.. Seriously this is the Will to Power..which in Kaballistic Terms is the Will to Chokmah.. The Concept of power is an available resource from which one can draw strength from.. and it is in this mercy..and in this wrath that we come to understand him...In the God given light that he is..Nietzsche showed us that he can have an opinion too.. That each Man or Woman has an Overman within them..is the degree of hierarchy that belongs to the secret societies..of which Nietzsche was not apart of.. and although this may sound out of base..but the degree to which we find certainty in our lives..is indeed the Will to power..This Terminal..or Infatuation of the commentary it self..belongs to Kaufmann...and therein i Disagree that I am anything of an Anti-Christ..but a Christ..and that inside itself is the Will to Power..an attempt that Jesus Made on the Cross...and to the subjects of the Romans/Jews at the time who witnessed his crucifixion...Seemed to be leaning that each man has their own Philosophy and Personage..all unto themselves..and from this religious river..we combine into a stream..which is the ever flowing and everlasting Source of the Life of Jesus Christ..and anyone whom he further Reincarnated into..For Example Nietzsche himself was Christ...and this continuation..is the Eternal Recurrence that He spoke about...the whole thing is a Mechanical way to see the world..as a vehicle for both faith and trust... and in certain words we find that one is either true or false..and thats what everything comes down to anyways...the Creation of the Time..is always insipid.. and the time itself is made to be Sovereign..in understanding and base relief..that what everything is IS called the Overman..or Ubermensch..the Idea itself Fails to see the light..and that Decoration is of Course Feminine..A Lesbian in a Mans Cloth is Hard to come by..but staying honest is always possible.. So in secret i attempt to comply with the traditions of the time..and understand that I am here now in the Arms of a Guru or Saint..and that in Names Spoken is Neem Karoli Baba..
People read him entirely out of context. The Prince, which I think heavily influenced his work and mindset, is presented as a guideline for rulers, not commoners. He does not agree with the masses acting in that way, but believes they must be manipulated into never realizing that.