Talk:Übermensch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 Archives 2 more scope given to social factors 3 Weak citation 4 Word of advice on Neitzche battles 5 The Antichrist 6 Cart firmly before the horse 7 Translating übermensch 8 Magneto? 9 What? 10 Manusmriti ? 11 C.S. Lewis' The Abolition of Man

[edit] Archives

• /Archive 1

[edit] more scope given to social factors

Having read this article several times I wonder if rather than trying to explain what the ubermensch is we could use a dialectic to explain what it isnt - primarily im thinking of comparing the concept with Orwell's last man of Europe Winston Smith in 1984. I know this maybe covered in the last man article but it seems that a reference to nanny states and liberal governments removing absolute responsibility might sit better with contemporary laymen. What you think?

Also the article keeps maintaining that the ubermensch is independent and an individual who does not reley on social mores to tell him what to do. This is wrong. That kind of man would have to be god or animal and these are the most common misconceptions of the ubermensch philosophy. He is independent of herd behavior making him independent from the herd this dosnt mean that if a group of ubermensch come across gold, or what ever, that they are all going to kill each other for individual gain.

Something needs to be said about the reestablishment of human relations like family, tribe, society etc. that are eroded to mere superficial obedience under slave morality.

[edit] Weak citation

I would point out that one of the few cited secondary sources, Pamornpol Jinatichra, is, according to his own Online CVPDF (40.9 KiB), a Ph.D. candidate in electrical engineering. All of his advanced formal education is in technical fields. Sounds like an impressive guy & all, but no more citable on this than any other bright person…like the ones contributing to this article. Which is to say, not really any more a reliable source than a Wikipedian's original research. - Jmabel | Talk 06:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw that - I hoped that he got that somewhere else, but the author isn't named so I wouldn't know for sure. It seems to be a reference to the list of 50 'higher men' Nietzsche gave in, I think, Twilight of the Idols, so it isn't "really" necessary. It's good for an external link, though. --GoodIntentions^talk 02:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Word of advice on Neitzche battles

First of all: do not assume that anyone's interpretation is WRONG. This would be againts the fundamental spirit of Neitzcheian philosophy. Gather as many interpretatation as you can (if you go to a decent university library, you can find literally hundreds!!) without getting carried away. Noone really KNOWS what Neitzhe was trying to say: this again would violate the spirit of his philosophy. Just make sure that all interpreatations stay withing some general realm of plausibility and authorititaiveness (he WAS an atheist, for example) and document every sentence with reliable sources (even though most of them are wrong) --Francesco Franco 10:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"document every sentence with reliable sources (even though most of them are wrong)" A most sensible thing to say --GoodIntentions^talk 01:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Antichrist

I deleted the quote from the Antichrist at the end of the article about the kind of being that a man might will mostly because, when Nietzsche wrote the AntiChrist, he had abandoned the overman in favor of free spirits. This free spirit is a man who can create at will. It is almost certainly free spirits he is refering to in the AntiChrist and not overman, and thus it has been improperly cited. --Lkak126 02:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

And where Nietzsche writed that he had abandoned the superman ? The free spirits are in Human, all too human : 1876... And does Nietzsche speak about eternal recurrence and will to power in Antechrist ? no, but he had not abandonned them. 86.209.207.214 07:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't write it at all, he just abandones the way he had used it before. The way this article is written is horribly confused: it begins to make a point, and then undermines what it says mid-sentence. And what the heck is "news values?" Better that it not "exist" at all, anyone reading it will only be confused.--Lkak126 23:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You would have to explain your view on this a bit more... he in no way abandoned the overman... it has a lot to do with freedom, it is still a theme in Ecce Homo. (Soyloquequieres 08:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Cart firmly before the horse

From the article: "In Fyodor Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, the main character, Raskolnikov, considers himself to be an Übermensch of sorts, and brazenly commits an act of murder, feeling the normal rules of morality do not apply to him."

Nietzsche was an avid reader of Dostoevsky, whom he read in French translation. Dostoevsky presumably never so much as heard of Nietzsche. - Jmabel | Talk 05:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Roughly 3 days, no response, removing. If someone wants to add something well-cited about Dostoevsky's influence on Nietzsche as it relates to this concept, that would be a useful addition. - Jmabel | Talk 00:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I just saw this now. I'm the one who added the Crime and Punishment bit. I thought Dostoevsky was commenting on Nietzche with the book, but apparently not. A short web search turned up this, though, from Cliff's Notes: "Dostoevsky had also apparently encountered other views of the Superman or Ubermensch—views that were not yet formulated in any coherent whole but were heard wherever intellectuals gathered." [1] What do you think? Korny O'Near 16:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the link I just found for Leopold and Loeb discusses Crime and Punishment too: "the idea did not actually originate with Nietzsche, as many imagine. He merely articulated something already in the air during the century in which he lived... [Dostoevsky] was responding to the intellectual idea that some people are above the social conventions of morality, grounded in the ideas about the hierarchy of masters and slaves proposed by philosopher Georg W. F. Hegel." [2] If it's true that it originated with Hegel, this seems important enough to include elsewhere in the article. Korny O'Near 16:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The quotes you've given us just show a very particular understanding of Hegel, not to say a misunderstanding. To say that Hegel's dialectic of slave & master justify "the intellectual idea that some people are above the social conventions of morality" needs some sources and argumenting, as it is a most surprising reading of Hegel (who certainly didn't reinvidicate himself, as did Nietzsche, as an "immoralist"). Furthermore, although one can readily bet that Nietzsche has read Hegel (to which extent?) and has thus been "influenced" by him, this relationship is in no way a master-disciple one. Gilles Deleuze — who, you might point out, has been criticized on this point — claimed that Nietzsche's philosophy was primary an "anti-hegelianism" (see Deleuze, Nietzsche and philosophy). Kant & Schopenhauer are more obvious references for Nietzsche, but both were also strongly criticized (Kant for his conception of a "thing-in-itself" and Schopenhauer for his metaphysical conception of the will, as being single & united; whilst Nietzsche's will to power is complex, plural and not singular — and is neither a psychological faculty, nor a cosmogonic force). Lapaz 15:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the quote is making a reasonable point; I think you're misunderstanding it. The point is that Hegel simply came up with the idea that humanity has both a "slave consciousness" and a "master consciousness"; he didn't try to justify it, or argue that people should live their lives differently as a result of it: that was the work of later philosophers, including Nietzsche. Essentially he created the language that others used. Korny O'Near 18:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The übermensch theory is a development of the "genius worship" and great man theory which was common in the romantic movement. It is probably some kind of genius theory with roots in romanticism that Dostoyevsky refers to, rather than to Nietzsche. 217.208.31.150 12:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

To pretend Nietzsche made an apology of the great man is a gross misunderstanding, criticized by many philosophers, among them Gilles Deleuze and Jacques Derrida in their respective works on Nietzsche. Maybe this extract from Thus Spoke Zarathoustra, II, "On Redemption", may shed some light on his conception of what the people calls "great men":

"I see and have seen worse things, and divers things so hideous, that I should neither like to speak of all matters, nor even keep silent about some of them: namely, men who lack everything, except that they have too much of one thing--men who are nothing more than a big eye, or a big mouth, or a big belly, or something else big,--reversed cripples, I call such men.

And when I came out of my solitude, and for the first time passed over this bridge, then I could not trust mine eyes, but looked again and again, and said at last: "That is an ear! An ear as big as a man!" I looked still more attentively--and actually there did move under the ear something that was pitiably small and poor and slim. And in truth this immense ear was perched on a small thin stalk--the stalk, however, was a man! A person putting a glass to his eyes, could even recognise further a small envious countenance, and also that a bloated soullet dangled at the stalk. The people told me, however, that the big ear was not only a man, but a great man, a genius. But I never believed in the people when they spake of great men--and I hold to my belief that it was a reversed cripple, who had too little of everything, and too much of one thing."

(bolden by me, Lapaz)

[edit] Translating übermensch

I think übermensch should be translated to "transhuman". I'm Swedish and in Swedish, the word for "human being" is not the same word as "man", but människa. The German word mensch is an equivalent of that word. If I was to translate människa into English as literally as possible, I would not say "man" but "human being". Given the explanation of über, I would say that "trans-" is the best prefix. (The Swedish word över is equivalent to the German über by the way). Hence, "transhuman" would be the translation that best fits the description given in this article of the word übermensch. A transhuman would be a person who transcends ordinary humanity and becomes something greater than man. I'm in no way an expert on Nietzsche but because German and Swedish are identical in this respect I think I am fully qualified to give this opinion. However, I do not know if any English translator has proposed the word transhuman. I don't want to edit the article since I don't know very much about Nietzsche but someone less ignorant than me on the issue should add transhuman as a possible translation. /Benzocaine 23:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: The word "übermenschlich" also has a Swedish equivalent, "övermänsklig", which in my dictionary is translated as "superhuman". This suggests that "human" is a better translation than "man". Also, in Swedish, the word "människa" is totally neutral. We have four genders for nouns: male, female and two neutral ones. "Människa" is one of the neutrals. Thus, even though the German word "mensch" is grammatically male, it should in my opinion be regarded as completely neutral and not only "less specifically male than the English 'man'". It is no more male than e.g. lion, which is also grammatically male in German (der Löwe) without implying that a lioness is of male gender. And yes, I do speak a little German so it's not only my native language that makes me want to translate "übermensch" as transhuman. /Benzocaine 23:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "transhuman" might be a good translation. It is a word that is commonly used nowadays in the various futurist movements, as is "posthuman".Shibidee 17:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The word transhuman is increasingly common today, but is a poor translation of übermensch. It tends to suggest something that is biologically beyond the human. Clearly, that is not Nietzsche's meaning. However, I agree that "human" rather than "man" is more to the point. - Jmabel | Talk 06:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, the term overman is perfect. The idea of self overcoming would be lost if it translated as human. Human has a more removed connotation and this subject is far from removed.(Soyloquequieres 08:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

Nietzsche's Menschliches, Allzumenschliches is routinely translated as Human, All Too Human. - Jmabel | Talk 01:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magneto?

The Magneto reference at the end seems to based on a complete misunderstanding of Uebermensch. Superpowers have nothing to do with it. As I understand it, XMen actually intends Magneto's philosiphy to resemble Malcolm X (with Dr X as MLK) and not Nietzsche. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.40.17.240 (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree. I think that Ra's Al Gul is a better candidate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.39.138.226 (talk • contribs) 23 December 2006.

[edit] What?

I think you have to be Übermensch to understand this article. Szzuk 22:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manusmriti ?

Not much about influences on Nietzsche. The articles on Superman, Übermensch, and Manusmriti / Hindu ideas of 'superman'... shouldn't they link up? Hakluyt bean 18:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The article on Manusmriti doesn't mention anything about "Hindu ideas of 'superman'," and I don't think it had much of an influence on Nietzsche. While the superhero Superman may have originally been inspired by Nietzsche's Übermensch, this was abandoned early enough, and the two are distinct enough, that I think merging the articles would create more confusion that it would resolve. What did you have in mind? RJC ^Talk 19:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right, the manusmriti article doesn't say much, maybe I should have posted there. Here it looks like Übermensch is a pure invention of Nietzsche, and by implication the Germans, which hindsight might persuade us is true, but as I understand it Nietzsche was steeped in Hindu philosophy and one traces the idea of overman from the caste system, the Brahmin caste, and reincarnation. Separately I didn't mean to infer merging articles, just having articles reference each other. Otherwise it looks like all these things spontaneously occurred, and in complete isolation. Hakluyt bean 15:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] C.S. Lewis' The Abolition of Man

The title The Abolition of Man indeed seems to suggest that Lewis is talking about the Übermensch. But I think he's not. Lewis argues against rationalism, against losing touch with human proportions and emotions. In a way that is surpassing humanity, but surpassing it by force of reason specifically, which isn't really compatible with Nietzsches view of impulsive human creativity and innovation. I'm sure Lewis doesn't support the idea of the Übermensch, but The Abolition of Man is not an attack against it. Renke 23:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)