Unlocking your full potential by disregarding the morality of others. Do you think the concept if flawed or that it is impossible to ever achieve? Yeah, I started reading NietzscheGerman term for "Overman" or "Superman." Hence, in the philosophy of Nietzsche, an extraordinary individual who transcends the limits of traditional morality to live purely by the will to power.
Nietzsche's idea with this is pretty interesting. My belief is that it naturally happens to a degree.
Most people are followers, but the few who lead often have a sociopathic streak.
Most people are followers, but the few who lead often have a sociopathic streak.
I havent read Nietzche.Wouldnt that make some one like Adolf Hitler a superman? He definitely disregarded other peoples morality.
On this basis I disagree with this "Unlocking your full potential by disregarding the morality of others".
Cool thread though.
On this basis I disagree with this "Unlocking your full potential by disregarding the morality of others".
Cool thread though.
I think when applied to some of our most loved leaders etc, it seems like a great philosophy.
But when applied to the most brutal dictators etc, it seems like a terrible philosophy.
Overall, if you disregard the morality of others, then you would be relying only on your own morality, this could be good or bad, as Turq said, many leaders "have a sociopathic streak."
But when applied to the most brutal dictators etc, it seems like a terrible philosophy.
Overall, if you disregard the morality of others, then you would be relying only on your own morality, this could be good or bad, as Turq said, many leaders "have a sociopathic streak."
Last edited by Little BaBy JESUS (2009-06-26 16:22:00)
Hitler fully embraced Nietzche's ideas of unter and ubermensch. However Nietzche's philosophy that other personal influences inhibit our ability to unlock our full potential is a bit misguided I think, not to mention that sometimes peer-to-peer interaction helps a person unlock their full potential. The philosophy is flawed for many reasons, but its an interesting thought-exercise to think about in absolute terms.Burwhale wrote:
I havent read Nietzche.Wouldnt that make some one like Adolf Hitler a superman? He definitely disregarded other peoples morality.
On this basis I disagree with this "Unlocking your full potential by disregarding the morality of others".
Cool thread though.
Finish reading your book and then let's debate Nietzche.
Anyone and everyone is capable of disregarding the morality of the collective. This is a good idea for everyone to strive to achieve. It would not be conducive to chaos and anarchy if it was achieved by all, because anyone with enough preparation, mental fortitude, and wisdom to break the philosophical blocks of society would have to come to terms with some incredibly basic fundamental rights and moral ideals. An ideal government would be happily created and strictly held in check according to these most basic principles - any other beliefs that one may hold could not interfere with this idea of government, as it is excluded by the most basic ideas that every ubermensch must come to terms with.
Yeah, Hitler was awesome, Charles Manson amazing, Pol Pot a superman.
Fuck Israel
Yeah I know. What was your girlfriends interpretation?Macbeth wrote:
Unlocking your full potential by disregarding the morality of others. Do you think the concept if flawed or that it is impossible to ever achieve? Yeah, I started reading NietzscheGerman term for "Overman" or "Superman." Hence, in the philosophy of Nietzsche, an extraordinary individual who transcends the limits of traditional morality to live purely by the will to power.
There were only a few men who were driven by nothing other than the will to power. Some achieved greatness, Alexander, Genghis Khan. Others infamy, such as Hitler. But let it be said that Hitler abused the ideas of Nietzche and took them to extremes that were not intended.
How do you know?AussieReaper wrote:
There were only a few men who were driven by nothing other than the will to power. Some achieved greatness, Alexander, Genghis Khan. Others infamy, such as Hitler.
Document the rise of these men into power positions, then you'll know.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
How do you know?AussieReaper wrote:
There were only a few men who were driven by nothing other than the will to power. Some achieved greatness, Alexander, Genghis Khan. Others infamy, such as Hitler.
I have read/watched a fair bit on Alex...but you have never met the man. Isn't that kind of a prerequisite?
The will to power is striving to reach the highest station in life. That is not necessarily being a sort of official leader, in fact to an ubermensch it is most likely something very different. We cannot say the ubermensch transcends the morality of society and then impose society's definition of power as his own.
The will to power is striving to reach the highest station in life. That is not necessarily being a sort of official leader, in fact to an ubermensch it is most likely something very different. We cannot say the ubermensch transcends the morality of society and then impose society's definition of power as his own.
I need to have met Alexander to consider him an Übermensch?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I have read/watched a fair bit on Alex...but you have never met the man. Isn't that kind of a prerequisite?
The will to power is striving to reach the highest station in life. That is not necessarily being a sort of official leader, in fact to an ubermensch it is most likely something very different. We cannot say the ubermensch transcends the morality of society and then impose society's definition of power as his own.
Have a look at his ambition to conquer the known world. And then when he did, he wanted to continue the conquest. Past India. Into the unknown. Not for exploration. Not for trade. To conquer. That is the morality to live purely by the will to power. It wasn't the will to govern over all men. It wasn't the will to expand the glory of Greece. It was personal ambition.
If you don't think he more than transcends societies definition of power, when he was so far from Greece and the civilised world then by all means continue to think he doesn't meet that definition Greek society had placed upon him. I think he went beyond that.
You know what they say
Cream rises to the top..... but so does scum.
Some rise with the support and consent of others, while some rise on the backs of others without regard for consequences. The really good ones rise to the top and benefit all while the really bad ones rise to the top and then use the power to prey on others.
Super good and super evil, sounds like a comic book.
I guess that the superman is meant to progress humanity. That man can do better than the past generation by standing on the accomplishments of the previous generation as had been done since man was an ape or worm. So someone who is super evil wouldn't progress man and therefore couldn't be the Ubermensch, perhaps they are the anti-Ubermensch.... anyone else getting the Christ allegory?
Cream rises to the top..... but so does scum.
Some rise with the support and consent of others, while some rise on the backs of others without regard for consequences. The really good ones rise to the top and benefit all while the really bad ones rise to the top and then use the power to prey on others.
Super good and super evil, sounds like a comic book.
I guess that the superman is meant to progress humanity. That man can do better than the past generation by standing on the accomplishments of the previous generation as had been done since man was an ape or worm. So someone who is super evil wouldn't progress man and therefore couldn't be the Ubermensch, perhaps they are the anti-Ubermensch.... anyone else getting the Christ allegory?
I think you are getting the definition of ubermensch a bit confused...
An ubermensch must transcend society's moral bounds and live by his own morality as defined by himself. As a result, he will be as ambitious as humans are at their most basic level, as he is no longer checked by society's rules. His morality is not ambition, ambition is not a morality. Ambition is a trait, a morality is a set of rules to live by.
There is no doubt Alexander was ambitious, or that he transcended the social definitions of power. You can be ambitious without being an ubermensch however, and the key is breaking the chains of the moral system, a la Crime and Punishment.
I really believe you cannot understand someone's moral system unless you have met them and kept their company for some time. Ideally in times of crisis.
An ubermensch must transcend society's moral bounds and live by his own morality as defined by himself. As a result, he will be as ambitious as humans are at their most basic level, as he is no longer checked by society's rules. His morality is not ambition, ambition is not a morality. Ambition is a trait, a morality is a set of rules to live by.
There is no doubt Alexander was ambitious, or that he transcended the social definitions of power. You can be ambitious without being an ubermensch however, and the key is breaking the chains of the moral system, a la Crime and Punishment.
I really believe you cannot understand someone's moral system unless you have met them and kept their company for some time. Ideally in times of crisis.
I disagree. By Nietzsche's own theory, he assumes that most people are untermenschen. In other words, there will always be fewer ubermenschen than untermenschen, because it takes a fair amount of intelligence to be a true freethinker. Most people are followers.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Anyone and everyone is capable of disregarding the morality of the collective. This is a good idea for everyone to strive to achieve. It would not be conducive to chaos and anarchy if it was achieved by all, because anyone with enough preparation, mental fortitude, and wisdom to break the philosophical blocks of society would have to come to terms with some incredibly basic fundamental rights and moral ideals. An ideal government would be happily created and strictly held in check according to these most basic principles - any other beliefs that one may hold could not interfere with this idea of government, as it is excluded by the most basic ideas that every ubermensch must come to terms with.
Society is necessarily a structure that does some thinking for its citizens on moral grounds. However, society also requires ubermenschen to lead it.
In effect, ubermenschen are the people that decide what morals a society lives by.
Before I respond to the rest, how do you feel about the statement "all men are created equal"?Turquoise wrote:
I disagree. By Nietzsche's own theory, he assumes that most people are untermenschen. In other words, there will always be fewer ubermenschen than untermenschen, because it takes a fair amount of intelligence to be a true freethinker. Most people are followers.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Anyone and everyone is capable of disregarding the morality of the collective. This is a good idea for everyone to strive to achieve. It would not be conducive to chaos and anarchy if it was achieved by all, because anyone with enough preparation, mental fortitude, and wisdom to break the philosophical blocks of society would have to come to terms with some incredibly basic fundamental rights and moral ideals. An ideal government would be happily created and strictly held in check according to these most basic principles - any other beliefs that one may hold could not interfere with this idea of government, as it is excluded by the most basic ideas that every ubermensch must come to terms with.
Society is necessarily a structure that does some thinking for its citizens on moral grounds. However, society also requires ubermenschen to lead it.
In effect, ubermenschen are the people that decide what morals a society lives by.
Ridiculous statement imo.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Before I respond to the rest, how do you feel about the statement "all men are created equal"?Turquoise wrote:
I disagree. By Nietzsche's own theory, he assumes that most people are untermenschen. In other words, there will always be fewer ubermenschen than untermenschen, because it takes a fair amount of intelligence to be a true freethinker. Most people are followers.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Anyone and everyone is capable of disregarding the morality of the collective. This is a good idea for everyone to strive to achieve. It would not be conducive to chaos and anarchy if it was achieved by all, because anyone with enough preparation, mental fortitude, and wisdom to break the philosophical blocks of society would have to come to terms with some incredibly basic fundamental rights and moral ideals. An ideal government would be happily created and strictly held in check according to these most basic principles - any other beliefs that one may hold could not interfere with this idea of government, as it is excluded by the most basic ideas that every ubermensch must come to terms with.
Society is necessarily a structure that does some thinking for its citizens on moral grounds. However, society also requires ubermenschen to lead it.
In effect, ubermenschen are the people that decide what morals a society lives by.
Genes and a hundred other factors come into it. There is no such thing as a level playing field.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
What's the genetic difference between humans and apes? Something like half a percent I think? lolFlecco wrote:
Ridiculous statement imo.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Before I respond to the rest, how do you feel about the statement "all men are created equal"?Turquoise wrote:
I disagree. By Nietzsche's own theory, he assumes that most people are untermenschen. In other words, there will always be fewer ubermenschen than untermenschen, because it takes a fair amount of intelligence to be a true freethinker. Most people are followers.
Society is necessarily a structure that does some thinking for its citizens on moral grounds. However, society also requires ubermenschen to lead it.
In effect, ubermenschen are the people that decide what morals a society lives by.
Genes and a hundred other factors come into it. There is no such thing as a level playing field.
Obviously not exactly the same, that is not the intent of the statement, but for all social intents and purposes the same.
I do not believe in it. I believe our society's belief in it only has relevance to equal protection under the law.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Before I respond to the rest, how do you feel about the statement "all men are created equal"?Turquoise wrote:
I disagree. By Nietzsche's own theory, he assumes that most people are untermenschen. In other words, there will always be fewer ubermenschen than untermenschen, because it takes a fair amount of intelligence to be a true freethinker. Most people are followers.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Anyone and everyone is capable of disregarding the morality of the collective. This is a good idea for everyone to strive to achieve. It would not be conducive to chaos and anarchy if it was achieved by all, because anyone with enough preparation, mental fortitude, and wisdom to break the philosophical blocks of society would have to come to terms with some incredibly basic fundamental rights and moral ideals. An ideal government would be happily created and strictly held in check according to these most basic principles - any other beliefs that one may hold could not interfere with this idea of government, as it is excluded by the most basic ideas that every ubermensch must come to terms with.
Society is necessarily a structure that does some thinking for its citizens on moral grounds. However, society also requires ubermenschen to lead it.
In effect, ubermenschen are the people that decide what morals a society lives by.
We are clearly not born equal in a biological sense. Some of us are much more intelligent, while others are much more physically healthy. Some are even lucky enough to be blessed in both senses, while others have been cursed with inferior intellects and inferior health.
Now, don't mistake my statements as being racial or cultural. I believe all races are equal as a whole, but individuals can be determined to be superior or inferior with respect to specific traits. This is where the ubermenschen idea comes into play.
For the record, Turq says I'm the elitist.
Besides, ubermenschen don't give enough of a shit to set moral standards for society. Ambition towards the classic definition of power and ruthlessness sets the moral guidelines, you don't have to be an ubermensch to have those traits.
Just because everyone has the ability to and should strive to become an ubermensch does not mean everyone will make it. A society where everyone can break free of social norms would be so radically different than our own the comparison is useless, but still the ideal to be striven for.Turquoise wrote:
I disagree. By Nietzsche's own theory, he assumes that most people are untermenschen. In other words, there will always be fewer ubermenschen than untermenschen, because it takes a fair amount of intelligence to be a true freethinker. Most people are followers.
Not true. Society is only a structure for people working together. If everyone had practically identical morals, society would only be a reflection of its constituents.Turquoise wrote:
Society is necessarily a structure that does some thinking for its citizens on moral grounds. However, society also requires ubermenschen to lead it.
Besides, ubermenschen don't give enough of a shit to set moral standards for society. Ambition towards the classic definition of power and ruthlessness sets the moral guidelines, you don't have to be an ubermensch to have those traits.
I called you an elitist but I never said I wasn't one myself.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
For the record, Turq says I'm the elitist.
Not everyone has the ability though. Again, freethought is generally reserved for more intelligent and wise people.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Just because everyone has the ability to and should strive to become an ubermensch does not mean everyone will make it. A society where everyone can break free of social norms would be so radically different than our own the comparison is useless, but still the ideal to be striven for.
Ruthlessness and pragmatism are different, but not mutually exclusive. Sometimes, it is practical to be ruthless, but other times, it isn't.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Not true. Society is only a structure for people working together. If everyone had practically identical morals, society would only be a reflection of its constituents.
Besides, ubermenschen don't give enough of a shit to set moral standards for society. Ambition towards the classic definition of power and ruthlessness sets the moral guidelines, you don't have to be an ubermensch to have those traits.
I just call bullshit. We are a product of our environments. There is no reason that if someone is developed to challange authority (not rebel-without-a-cause challenge authority, legitimate justify your reasoning to me stuff) they would be incapable of doing so. Wisdom in the typical sense is more of a hindrance than anything when it comes to breaking social chains, and intelligence only dictates how quickly you pick up on new ideas. How quickly someone could learn independent thought might vary from person to person, but if society was geared towards individualism (lolwut?) there is no genetic barrier for some people and not others.Turquoise wrote:
Not everyone has the ability though. Again, freethought is generally reserved for more intelligent and wise people.
Being soft does not get you into power any more quickly.Turquoise wrote:
Ruthlessness and pragmatism are different, but not mutually exclusive. Sometimes, it is practical to be ruthless, but other times, it isn't.
just got back from a trip
Lies, -WolfensteinMacbeth wrote:
Yeah, I started reading Nietzsche
I see where you're coming from, but the bolded part is... strange. Wisdom is a good thing... full stop.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I just call bullshit. We are a product of our environments. There is no reason that if someone is developed to challange authority (not rebel-without-a-cause challenge authority, legitimate justify your reasoning to me stuff) they would be incapable of doing so. Wisdom in the typical sense is more of a hindrance than anything when it comes to breaking social chains, and intelligence only dictates how quickly you pick up on new ideas. How quickly someone could learn independent thought might vary from person to person, but if society was geared towards individualism (lolwut?) there is no genetic barrier for some people and not others.
Intelligence is pretty important for the same reason you listed.
You seem to be advocating breaking social chains for the sake of breaking them. I'm not really sure where you're trying to get with this.
Yep, but you choose your battles. Some things aren't worth the trouble of fighting them.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Being soft does not get you into power any more quickly.
heyyyyyyyy I didn't see this because I left for 4 days.
An ubermensch cannot be restricted by social chains at all. If they are not restrictive because they align perfectly with his own morality then they do not need to be broken, but then they aren't really chains in the first place.
Wisdom is by definition a way of thinking passed down from elders. We usually view this advice as sound, but the fact that it does not come from within makes it nothing more than a burden to a would-be ubermensch. He may reach the same conclusions on his own, but he must reach those conclusions on his own.
Unless you can prove to me that every second of your day is accounted for, battles are always worth fighting. Frankly the problem is lack of recognizable battles, not lack of time.
An ubermensch cannot be restricted by social chains at all. If they are not restrictive because they align perfectly with his own morality then they do not need to be broken, but then they aren't really chains in the first place.
Wisdom is by definition a way of thinking passed down from elders. We usually view this advice as sound, but the fact that it does not come from within makes it nothing more than a burden to a would-be ubermensch. He may reach the same conclusions on his own, but he must reach those conclusions on his own.
Unless you can prove to me that every second of your day is accounted for, battles are always worth fighting. Frankly the problem is lack of recognizable battles, not lack of time.