Ubermensch elevation?

E

edmaster111

Registered Member
“The new ‘superman, is autonomous, destined to fulfill our highest dreams. His secret nobility will be of an aristocratic elevation, for which no pattern exists, and nobody should be asked to follow."


Question: How would this autonomous lonely man get to this aristocratic position of power?
 
edmaster111 said:
“The new ‘superman, is autonomous, destined to fulfill our highest dreams. His secret nobility will be of an aristocratic elevation, for which no pattern exists, and nobody should be asked to follow."


Question: How would this autonomous lonely man get to this aristocratic position of power?
Click to expand...

Since this "affectation" is secret and a private interpretation of apotheosis or stately ascension, what would be the obstacle? Even those who are not mentally ill can daydream that they are a monarch, or can privately entertain that their pursuits -- whether unique or commonplace -- are noble.
_
 
Where did this quote come from? What is the context? Is it from Mein Kampf or is it referring to a new SUV model from Dodge?
 
And you don't think that's a salient detail in the question? How about some context around the statement?
 
edmaster111 said:
its either a hypothetical or real situation, so context doesnt' really matter
Click to expand...
In fact, it matters greatly. Obviously, it sounds like Nietzsche, and he had quite a lot more to say on the subject, so I wouldn't be surprised if he'd elaborated on the ascension - not of a single, lonely man to rulership, but of a more evolved version of humanity, which would emerge at first as a few exceptional human beings, and eventually become the norm.
It's not so much a hypothetical or real situation as the expression of a hope.
 
edmaster111 said:
its either a hypothetical or real situation, so context doesnt' really matter
Click to expand...

It matters. For example, we wouldn't know if it's hypothetical or real without you informing us. You've been immersed in a book; you know the context of all these words in that excerpt. As I pointed out, for all one can tell from your opening post, you might have been asking about a new truck model.


edmaster111 said:
yea but thats solely your interpretation of it
Click to expand...
It's pretty hard to draw any interpretation of an excerpt that's only 32 words. And even harder to answer questions about it.

If want to engage in any meaningful level of discussion about a given subject, it behooves you to provide as much context as is feasible, else the first dozen posts will be asking for context anyway, like pulling teeth.
 
Last edited:
Jeeves said:
In fact, it matters greatly. Obviously, it sounds like Nietzsche, and he had quite a lot more to say on the subject, so I wouldn't be surprised if he'd elaborated on the ascension - not of a single, lonely man to rulership, but of a more evolved version of humanity, which would emerge at first as a few exceptional human beings, and eventually become the norm.
It's not so much a hypothetical or real situation as the expression of a hope.
Click to expand...
edmaster111 said:
yea but thats solely your interpretation of it
Click to expand...
Yeah, and it's an entirely reasonable interpretation and fairly consistent with the vast majority of interpretations--save for Nietzsche's idiot sister and her fascist husband (well, and a bunch of Nazis).

Also--
edmaster111 said:
it came from the book, Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Kafka: Four Prophets of Our Destiny.
Click to expand...

This book is seriously dated and Hubben was working with some suspect texts (not deliberately, of course), at least, as regards Nietzsche.


Edit: fixed misattribution
 
Last edited:
edmaster111 said:
I made this thread for people who know about the ubermensch and the will to power that's the context man
Click to expand...
The ubermensch has been written about in a number of contexts in the last 140 years.

I'll leave this to those who have the time and patience to get a well-formed topic of discussion within the first dozen posts.
Dave out.
 
edmaster111 said:
“The new ‘superman, is autonomous, destined to fulfill our highest dreams. His secret nobility will be of an aristocratic elevation, for which no pattern exists, and nobody should be asked to follow."


Question: How would this autonomous lonely man get to this aristocratic position of power?
Click to expand...
They'd be a thinking 'idiot' whose family abided by the concept of 'noblesse oblige' well before the concept was named.
 
LaurieAG said:
They'd be a thinking 'idiot' whose family abided by the concept of 'noblesse oblige' well before the concept was named.
Click to expand...
I don't understand any of that. Who would be thinking who is an idiot? Whose family was nobility unaware that their duty as liege lords was called noblesse oblige since early feudalism, well before Nietzsche himself was conceived, let lone his notion of a post-superstition, post-moral man?
 
Jeeves said:
I don't understand any of that. Who would be thinking who is an idiot? Whose family was nobility unaware that their duty as liege lords was called noblesse oblige since early feudalism, well before Nietzsche himself was conceived, let lone his notion of a post-superstition, post-moral man?
Click to expand...
Have you read Dostoevskys 'The Idiot'? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Idiot

The title is an ironic reference to the central character of the novel, Lev Nikolayevich Myshkin, a young prince whose goodness, open-hearted simplicity, and guilelessness lead many of the more worldly characters he encounters to mistakenly assume that he lacks intelligence and insight. In the character of Prince Myshkin, Dostoevsky set himself the task of depicting "the positively good and beautiful man."[1] The novel examines the consequences of placing such a singular individual at the centre of the conflicts, desires, passions, and egoism of worldly society, both for the man himself and for those with whom he becomes involved.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should do a bit of reading and then you can answer your own questions
 
LaurieAG said:
Maybe you should do a bit of reading and then you can answer your own questions
Click to expand...
Maybe I should have read all the same books that you have read and refer to without citation, and then I would be wise.
But it's too late: I'm fated to be an old idiot.
 
Jeeves said:
Maybe I should have read all the same books that you have read and refer to without citation, and then I would be wise.
But it's too late: I'm fated to be an old idiot.
Click to expand...
Don't worry, you have a lot of company. ;)
 
LaurieAG said:
Have you read Dostoevskys 'The Idiot'? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Idiot

(quoting wikipedia)
The title is an ironic reference to the central character of the novel, Lev Nikolayevich Myshkin, a young prince whose goodness, open-hearted simplicity, and guilelessness lead many of the more worldly characters he encounters to mistakenly assume that he lacks intelligence and insight. In the character of Prince Myshkin, Dostoevsky set himself the task of depicting "the positively good and beautiful man."[1] The novel examines the consequences of placing such a singular individual at the centre of the conflicts, desires, passions, and egoism of worldly society, both for the man himself and for those with whom he becomes involved.
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine)

Interesting. I don't believe Dostoevsky intended the title so much ironically as he did simply differently. Myshkin is very much an idiot, in a certain respect. Also, epileptics then were generally regarded as idiots, regardless; cops, in the present day, generally regard epileptics as dangerous idiots (speaking from extensive personal experience here).

Myshkin is very much the mirror analogue of Jerzy Kosinski's Chauncey Gardener/Chance the Gardener in Being There (originally titled Dasein, incidentally, but Kosiniski thought it a tad pretentious or something). Was Chance an idiot? Yes and no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top