Nietzche's Übermensch

Rarechild

New member
What I'm thinking about this week: Nietzche's Overman characteristics in relation to experiences I've had, and people I've known, mainly in the context of writing about my 9 month stint in the French Quarter in New Orleans.

I have just started my study of existentialism, so I'm not professing any expertise- just what is striking me at the moment.

Here's a wiki article

Here's my professor's study-guide version of the characteristics of this path:

a) Remains faithful to the earth; overcomes personal resentment of the natural order and embraces life for what it is.
b) Promotes personal health and affirms the body’s natural instincts.
c) Quests alone—seeks the most difficult challenges and overcomes them, alone.
d) Creates own values.
e) Affirms selfishness as a virtue over altruism.
f) Seeks true reciprocal friendships to be core relationships.
g) Commits to self-mastery and self-overcoming in which self-pity from victimization has no place.

That last one has been pounding around in my brain. I have stacks of journals from all periods of my life and sometimes when I dive into them I do so for self-clarification, but just as often to remind myself how hard I had it, or how much I loved someone, or how ridiculous and dangerous things I did were. It makes me feel better about where I am. But there is also a measure of self pity, self importance, to the tone of the journals. As a writer, weeding out the whining and subjective view to find the meaning is a big hurdle for me.

The gears are turning...
 
Ah yes, the ubermensch. As a former philosophy major, I am very familiar with this, and have been on such a path for many years. Of course my focus in the major was primarily ethics and Greek philosophy.
 
Übermensch

Personally, i could never reconcile selfishness with Übermensch philosophy.
 
Yeah, I know what you mean. I struggled with that, too. Still do. Must be because I am prone to random acts of altruism... :rolleyes:
 
Selfish bastard

I have always thought selfishness a great word and sacrifice a yukky one. I totally get the selfishness as a virtue- you know, the loving yourself before you love others thing. If you don't build yourself up you have nothing to give. If you don't have what you want you are resentful, etc.

Selfishness is to self-awareness and love as altruism is to enabling. All of these words can be widely interpreted to extremes.

I have started to understand the idea of sacrifice lately not as giving up something you need and depriving yourself, but as giving up control out of love for another. Still trying to get the bitter taste out of my mouth when I say "sacrifice".

What really got me is that self-mastery without self pity. Not coming from the place of survival of victimization, but loving my fate, good and bad. Still thinking hard on that.

I'll have to actually read the fellow's books. :)
 
Here's my professor's study-guide version of the characteristics of this path:

a) Remains faithful to the earth; overcomes personal resentment of the natural order and embraces life for what it is.
b) Promotes personal health and affirms the body’s natural instincts.
c) Quests alone—seeks the most difficult challenges and overcomes them, alone.
d) Creates own values.
e) Affirms selfishness as a virtue over altruism.
f) Seeks true reciprocal friendships to be core relationships.
g) Commits to self-mastery and self-overcoming in which self-pity from victimization has no place.

I choke on (c) & (e), especially, and a little on (d).

(c) - We need to be strong on our own but also we need to be strong in community, in beloging with others.

(e) - Selfishness is hardly a virtue, nor is "altruism" as mere self-sacrifice. Real, authentic, human altruism is neither selfish nor self-neglecting. It is borne of direct insight into the true nature of self as that which only emerges in relation with other/s. Self is intrinsically communal, shared, relational. This doesn't mean that we give up our human uniqueness or needs! It means that we can recognize and honor our true needs in their true and full context.

(d) - There is only relational human being, and while we can and should be inventive and creative, we can only do so within the context of our relational lives. We therefore cannot so much create values as innovate and express and experience our true freedom/s within natural conditions. Every genuine invention is a bit of borrowing from history and from others. This makes us no less unique and particular--or free.
 
Thanks River.

I do understand where Nietzche is coming from on the selfishness question. I guess a different word might help here, but for now let's use "good selfishness" and "bad selfishness". When most of us think of selfishness, we're thinking of the "bad" kind. A mother who neglects her children so she can play videogames, or who only buys enough food for herself is an example of the "bad selfishness". She hurts others without caring, and is ultimately self-destructive. "Good selfishness" is being able to meet one's own needs despite the objections of others, such as getting out of a dead end job (where your boss says they really need you) to go to college. Getting yourself out of an abusive relationship can also be an example of "good selfishness".

The struggle I always had with it was that I don't think altruism is necessarily a bad thing. I know that many cynics (including Nietzche) tend to give it a bad rap, but where would the world be if mothers did not put the needs of their children ahead of their own, at least to some degree? In that regard, altrusim seems to be more universal than selfishness, good or bad.

Take Nietzche with a grain of salt. Despite some brilliant insights (and he did have them) he was a pretty messed up guy personally, and didn't seem to be able to make his philosophy apply to his own life. My suggestion: take what feels right, and disregard the rest.
 
I just gotta ask, how'd this post get shuffled to the back? I only lived in the French Quarter for two months but I'd love to hear your thoughts on it RC.

When I read 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra' I was encumbered by a lot of conflicting points. I don't think Nietzsche so much planned to spell out how you or I could become the overman. Rather I think he was poking at us all, and saying, "Who do you think you are?" It is a challenge to really self-evaluate and over-come the human condition. I do not believe Zarathustra is a representative of the overman, and I failed to find any characters elsewhere in the book who were either. I think we are all in agreement that Nietzsche missed the bill too.

So I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this of late, how did these ideas stick with you?
 
Hmm, let's see here, one year later...

a) Remains faithful to the earth; overcomes personal resentment of the natural order and embraces life for what it is.
b) Promotes personal health and affirms the body’s natural instincts.
c) Quests alone—seeks the most difficult challenges and overcomes them, alone.
d) Creates own values.
e) Affirms selfishness as a virtue over altruism.
f) Seeks true reciprocal friendships to be core relationships.
g) Commits to self-mastery and self-overcoming in which self-pity from victimization has no place.

My life has changed so completely this year, and yes, I am still struck by the powerful simplicity of accepting that we are part of the natural order, and in that order is human nature, which must seek for itself if it is ever to touch the truth of others.

Thanks for bringing this back on my radar. A little part of the journey I've been on to become myself entirely.

I agree that these are ideals like any other philosophy, and cannot all be pinned to a person at once to create a superman, but rather make one think about how to conduct a life from where we stand in the present, looking out around us into the weather, and continuing to make decisions, right and wrong, but continuing doggedly.

Brings to mind a passage a friend sent me recently written by Marianne Williamson:

"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us.' We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we're liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others." (A Return to Love: Reflections on the Principles of "A Course in Miracles", Harper Collins, 1992. From Chapter 7, Section 3])

Being strong and responsible for our own souls is terrifying. It is so difficult not to let distractions rule our existence, and to realize how incredibly precious our time is here in this life.

I only lived in the French Quarter for two months but I'd love to hear your thoughts on it RC.

NOLA- whole different story, definitely a part of who I am and how I see the world. Two months, eh? Yeah, I nearly offed myself holding on for nine. But I survived it. What did you want to hear about? (And thanks for asking)
 
Thoughts from your neighborhood pragmatic existential taoist

"The Fountainhead" by Ann Rand may help with some further insights about the rejection of the ethics of altruism and the acknowledgment of selfishness as a purer expression of the ego.

And Rarechild, you put the "sexy" in smart and the "stang" in good grammar.

You know how I love good spellign.
 
Interesting. I recently removed a self-described Ubermensch from my life, although he only really concentrated on the selfishness and personal mastery part.... horrible human being. That is the type of person that I am convinced the gods put me on this earth to wreck.

I'm intrigued by the *actual* definition of the term. He always equated it in our conversations to being a super-predator....
 
Guy in my class quoted Nietzche, and my prof said "Sorry, we only talk about philosophers here," and everyone put on their pursed lip face. Twas a joke, yes.
I find his works to be beautiful, yet elitist. The elitism is what throws me off and turns me off to the beauty of it. Granted yes, the whole being vs. seeming "rule" of sorts does apply and has been accessed- yet the only cynic I hold on a mental pedestal of sorts is Diogenes.
I find that Sartre, Nietzche, and existentialism as a whole are what seems appealing and true when first introduced to philosophy, but only after having your mind thoroughly unraveled and fucked over and over do you really find what is real for "you" so to speak.
What I have to be beautiful and true to my existence thus far usually correlates with Socrates/Plato and some Kierkegaard. What was above the door of the Oracle of Delphi was "Know Thyself"- so I hold that to be "dear". Only by knowing yourself can you really grow as a person to the extent in which you are able to humble yourself and perceive life from the perspective of another. That is another internal snag I have with Nietzche- if you're alone and selfish all the time only challenging yourself- you do grow, yes but one should be humble enough to accept that they do not know everything and if only alone you cannot learn that which others know...if that makes sense yet this can weave into the duality of knowing thyself and the only truth that matters is what is true to you (oh balls).
I will stop here before I go on and on. I resonate much with what River said.
 
"The Fountainhead" by Ann Rand may help with some further insights about the rejection of the ethics of altruism and the acknowledgment of selfishness as a purer expression of the ego.

Rand is anathema to all of my literate friends, so -- there being millions of books to read and not enough time -- I've never read any Rand. Charlie, are you suggesting there is good reason to put aside my inherited (and unexamined), third hand, distaste?

I'm a great big fan of altruism, actually, and I have seen a Rand title, "The Virtue of Selfishness" (which would seem to go against my sense of virtue). Am I missing something? Can it be boiled down?
 
Rand is anathema to all of my literate friends . . . I'm a great big fan of altruism, actually, and I have seen a Rand title, "The Virtue of Selfishness" (which would seem to go against my sense of virtue). Am I missing something? Can it be boiled down?

I'm only a little familiar with Rand's ideas, and haven't ever been able to finish one of her books, but I know a few people who've explained it to me. "The Virtue of Selfishness" is from Rand's Objectivist philosophy. Unfortunately, I don't think I can explain it at all, so I'm turning to Wikipedia for a few main points:

Rand's explanation of values presents the view that an individual's primary moral obligation is to achieve his or her own well-being—it is for his or her life and self-interest that an individual ought to adhere to a moral code. Egoism is a corollary of setting man's life as the moral standard. A corollary to Rand's endorsement of self-interest is her rejection of the ethical doctrine of altruism—which she defined in the sense of Auguste Comte's altruism (he coined the term), as a moral obligation to live for the sake of others. Rand did not use the term "selfishness" with the negative connotations that it usually has, but to refer to a form of rational egoism: "To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason, Purpose, Self-esteem."

. . .

Objectivism is a philosophy defined by the Russian-American philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand (1905–1982). Objectivism holds that reality exists independent of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive and deductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest, that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in laissez faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform man's widest metaphysical ideas, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that he can comprehend and to which he can respond emotionally.

Rand originally expressed her philosophical ideas in her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and other works. She further elaborated on them in her magazines "The Objectivist Newsletter," "The Objectivist," and "The Ayn Rand Letter," and in non-fiction books such as Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and The Virtue of Selfishness.

The name "Objectivism" derives from the principle that human knowledge and values are objective: they are not created by the thoughts one has, but are determined by the nature of reality, to be discovered by man's mind. Rand stated that she chose the name because her preferred term for a philosophy based on the primacy of existence—"existentialism"—had already been taken.​

Hopefully, the above will give you a glimpse into what her writings are about. Wikipedia has entries for "Virtue of Selfishness" and "Objectivism," as well as her books.
 
Last edited:
.... A corollary to Rand's endorsement of self-interest is her rejection of the ethical doctrine of altruism—which she defined in the sense of Auguste Comte's altruism (he coined the term), as a moral obligation to live for the sake of others. ....

There are likely to be several to many particular usage variants of the term "altruism". Apparently, Rand's "altruism" was conceived in opposition to Compte's, which centered on "moral obligation". Although I do believe the concept of "moral obligation" is sometimes necessary or useful, it can also stand in the way of the sense of "altruism" I had in mind when I said I liked it.

What I had in mind was not centered on obligation, but on empathy and compassion. The experience of empathy and compassion isn't centered on duty or obligation, but on wishing others to be happy, healthy, well, and free of suffering. Empathy and compassion lead one to serve the needs and interests of others because ... well, because they have such needs and interests, and because, well, we're all in this together. Not out of obligation or duty--which are fine motivators, I suppose, for those who haven't grown up yet.
 
Rand's explanation of values presents the view that an individual's primary moral obligation is to achieve his or her own well-being—it is for his or her life and self-interest that an individual ought to adhere to a moral code.​


Sheesh. Rand wasn't so inventive, was she? She's still playing the same old OBLIGATION game as her sparring partner, Compte.

What people do who feel extrinsically obligated and intrinsically unmotivated? They lie, cheat, steal, abuse, destroy.... In secret, in hiding. That's the whole freaking modern world! We sweep reality under a carpet and play Make Believe about "ethics".​
 
In regards to the cultural paradigm of moral obligation, as Rand lays out in The Fountainhead, if the pinnacle of the self in "service" or "duty" to one's fellow humans is the alleviation of suffering, then we in turn must desire that there continue to be suffering. Should suffering cease altogether, then we have undermined the very thing that permits us to achieve a state of social, moral, spiritual grace.

This can be described as a satisfaction of the moral ego, one where we endeavor to stand before our fellows and say, "Look how much suffering I have saved people from!" Selflessness becomes a badge we wear to gauge our dedication to society.

Selfishness, in contrast, can be determined to be the giving, fully and uncompromisingly, of one's purest state to society. In art, for example,it would be the unflinching conviction to make the thing that is in one's heart as it appears there and not censor it for the sake of not offending or upsetting the status quo.

I'm sure I missed many things, but I'm no literary critic, and ya'll can read the book.

It certainly has some polyamorous characters in it....
 
In regards to the cultural paradigm of moral obligation, as Rand lays out in The Fountainhead, if the pinnacle of the self in "service" or "duty" to one's fellow humans is the alleviation of suffering, then we in turn must desire that there continue to be suffering. Should suffering cease altogether, then we have undermined the very thing that permits us to achieve a state of social, moral, spiritual grace.

No doubt there are people with heads (and hearts) stuffed so full of bovine feces that this will seem like a reasonable contribution to a discussion on the relevant matters, but that's no reason to conclude that everyone is thus infected. It is true that some people are attached to suffering ... bla, bla, blah.... Must I really spell it out?

This can be described as a satisfaction of the moral ego, one where we endeavor to stand before our fellows and say, "Look how much suffering I have saved people from!" Selflessness becomes a badge we wear to gauge our dedication to society.

It is true that some people are attached to suffering ... bla, bla, blah.... Must I really spell it out? I mean, really, are we supposed to buy into and then argue against this cheap trick, this slight of hand rhetorical garbage?

Selfishness, in contrast, can be determined to be the giving, fully and uncompromisingly, of one's purest state to society. In art, for example, it would be the unflinching conviction to make the thing that is in one's heart as it appears there and not censor it for the sake of not offending or upsetting the status quo.

No doubt egoistic selfishness has at times motivated individuals to take risks and do great things, even to offer their best (in art, or...), but always? Hardly. (Think of such flawed greats as MLK, Gandhi...) I would not advocate a sort of "altruism" which is fully "selfless" (in the sense of sacrificing the self entirely in the interest of "society" or "service"). That, too, is a conception rooted in malarkey (sp?). Who says our genuine self interest is in competition or at odds with the needs of "society" or others? People who draw the lines that way and argue for one vs the other "side" are fools.
 
Last edited:
In regards to the cultural paradigm of moral obligation, as Rand lays out in The Fountainhead, if the pinnacle of the self in "service" or "duty" to one's fellow humans is the alleviation of suffering, then we in turn must desire that there continue to be suffering. Should suffering cease altogether, then we have undermined the very thing that permits us to achieve a state of social, moral, spiritual grace.

This is how this sort of "reasoning" hits my ears. I'd compare it to...

Firefighters are arsonists at heart because they get their pictures taken and plastered all over newspapers, where they can be held up as heros.

How can you reason with people who say shit like that?
 
Back
Top