Talk:Übermensch

Archives

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2

Another Reference

Hey, another good "reference in popular culture" of übermensch would be in the game team fortress 2. When the medic taunts while holding his medigun weapon he'll say "I am ze (the) übermensch!". Thought this should be added. --Helgado (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

free spirits

Should we create an article called free spirits?

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))

To say that he eventually abandoned "the overman" in the course of his philosophies, to me, seems irrelevant. This topic is not "Friedrich Nietzsche" but "Ubermensch", and thus should explain not the significance of "Ubermensch" to Nietzsche's philosophy on the whole, but as a concept in itself. Although Nietzsche may have progressed in his definition of what the overman represents over the course of his philosophy, the overman is given more attention in some works, while merely alluded to in others. Therefore instead of making the article "undermine itself" by drawing from Nietzsche's later conclusions, I recommend drawing definition of the concept from his works such as Thus Spake Zarathustra and Beyond Good and Evil. Nietzsche himself ended up insane... I bet he ended up noticing that contradiction upon contradiction had rendered his struggles futile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.153.29 (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"Unsigned", your comment is quite intelligent and apropos, until the very end. Your remark about Nietzsche's insanity is simultaneously snide and extraordinarily ignorant, which is quite a feat to achieve!Carnamagos (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

I'd say that "human" would be the best translation of "mensch", but as to Über it becomes somewhat muddled. The english translation should represent a spiritual or psychological transcendence rather than a physical change. Some lectures i've been to have used the latin "meta". Metahuman in other words. What do you think? Trans does have some unfortunate connotations. P!lgrim 12:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the disputes over the best way to translate uebermensch can avoid being original research, especially as it is one of the things which Nietzsche's translators argue over and must justify in the peer review process. It's not our job to come up with new translations, but rather to identify and employ the translation most commonly accepted. I've seen overman and superman used commonly. RJC ^Talk 02:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What about "hyperanthropos"? I've seen this term used as a translation of Uebermensch. Using classical languages, Freud's "Ich" becomes "Ego" and Nietzsche's "Uebermensch" becomes "hyperanthropos"Smiloid (talk) 07:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you say where you have seen this used? A major translation of Nietzsche would be good, or evidence of widespread use in peer-reviewed literature. As it stands, it looks like WP:OR, WP:NEO, and so I removed it. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 15:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

A simple google on the terms "hyperanthropos" "nietzsche" does give quite a number of examples. Whether "hyperanthropos" appears as on option for translating "Uebermensch", it should be noted somewhere in the article that Nietzsche's Uebermensch was derived from the writings of Lucian in which the term "Hyperanthropos" appears. I understand it also appears in Goethe's Faust.

Here are some links which might be relevant. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hyperanthropos+nietzsche&btnG=Google+Search http://www.rodsmith.org.uk/philosophy%20glossary/philosophy%20glossaryU-Z.htm http://www.roepstem.net/nietzsche.html Smiloid (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for these links. While Walter Kaufmann might have believed Nietzsche's Übermensch to have been inspired by Lucian's hyperanthropos, I don't think this is the consensus of contemporary scholars. This wouldn't, however, justify listing hyperanthropos as a translation of Übermensch, even if true. Of the two non-google websites you listed, one is a personal webpage, and the other is an un-peer-reviewed paper. Can you find a published translation of Nietzsche that renders Übermensch with hyperanthropos? RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 17:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that would be the key to find peer reviewed literature to use as a source. I should note that the German Wikipedias version of this article mentions "hyperanthropos" but that it dates even earlier thant Lucian's usage.

However it appears to be unsourced. Why can we not use Kaufmann as a source? According to the article on him on English Wikipedia, Kaufmann is "especially renowned for his translations and exegesis of Nietzsche"Smiloid (talk) 07:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Kaufmann would be a reliable source on this, but he translates Übermensch as "overman," and goes to some length to defend this translation. In the passage you cite, he seems to treat "hyperanthropos" as a separate, if related, concept. I suppose the main problem with anyone choosing to translate Übermensch as "hyperanthropos" is that "hyperanthropos" isn't English, either; so, I wouldn't expect to see anyone use it that way. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's not take the caveat against "original research" to the point of absurdity.

The word "Transhuman" is far too closely tied to ideas of biological evolution and to a particular "self-improvement via science and technology" agenda that I suspect Nietzsche himself would find risible.

The word "Overman", according to the Oxford English Dictionary, primarily means "a man having a position of authority or rule over others; a leader, a ruler, a chief; a religious superior; esp. (in early use) a supervisor or overseer of workmen, servants, etc.; A foreman or supervisor in a mine or colliery; An arbiter, an arbitrator, an umpire". The term appears in the OED in the Nietzschean sense only in the last entry, and then merely as a synonym for "Superman". The earliest usage recorded in the OED of the word "Overman" appears in an English translation of Nordau's Degeneration, which hardly seems an ideal context for Nietzsche's concept!

By contrast, the first definition for the noun "Superman" in the OED is as follows: "1. An ideal superior man conceived by Nietzsche as being evolved from the normal human type; loosely, a man of extraordinary power or ability; a superior being."

Also, the first definition of the word "Superhuman" as a noun appears in the OED as follows: "as n. Used to render G. übermensch SUPERMAN.1896 W. WALLACE in Academy 1 Aug. 75/2 [Nietzsche] a hermit of the present, and a man, or rather a more than man, a ‘superhuman’, of the future".

In light of the above examples, it seems obvious that either "Superman" or "Superhuman" is the correct English translation for "Uebermensch". For this reason, I cannot believe that the, to my mind, ridiculous debate over the best English equivalent remains ongoing. Walter Kaufmann may know German well, but his knowledge of his native tongue appears to leave much to be desired. This last statement goes for many other Nietzsche scholars and translators, as well, sad to say.

In any case, because of the present Tower of Babel-like approach to Nietzsche's term, I concur with the use of the untranslated word "Uebermensch" throughout this article.Carnamagos (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"Man" as male

The text of the article states, "Mensch is less specifically male than the English 'man'". This is not true. The English word "man", when used as a collective noun is not "male"; it is inculsive, referring to "[a]ny human being, regardless of sex or age; a member of the human race; a person." (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1973) To say that the collecive noun "man" means "male" is a confusion of homonyms, and a misuse of the English language. MishaPan 16:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

interpretation of Nietzsche? doesn't consideration upon misogyny need to be taken into consideration?

its all so mixed up

Am undertaking the rewriting of this artical. I am streamlining it and removing its many errors and misconceptions. Please give me some input on wether u like my additions/subtractions...

Also my spell check is bust so could do wit correction of spelling mistakes changes thus far

This worldliness...I have improved the flow and tried to show the subtlety of his thought here by advising people to beaware of the fact that the ubermensche is not a perfect, and man is also not perfect theyu are transitions and so go against thinking of perfect, static concepts that characterise western thought.

The Death of God and the Creation of New Values..."With the sole source of values no longer capable of providing those values, there is a real danger of nihilism." cHRISTIANITY IS ALREADY NIHILISTIC SO the danger is already here...

"belief in that God nevertheless did give life meaning for a time." Nietzsche is against one meaning of life therefore this sentance is Superfluous to his thought.

i still need to streamline this section.Ouroborosdross (talk) 07:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

........................................................................................... This is a very mixed up article with numerous errors and contradiction within it.

We should try to allude to the fact that categories of truth and ideas of nature in western society are static - that they can ultimatly arrive at perfection. Man as an idea is also percieved this way. The ubermensche is in many ways just an extention of Nietzsche's rejection of ever reaching perfection. The ubermensche is not perfection he is just 1 of the next possible states of man.Ouroborosdross (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Reversion

I am reverting Ouroborosdross's edits. Although some of them are good, they are mixed with a movement toward a particular vision of what the Übermensch is. There is no scholar consensus on this matter, and therefore the article cannot take the non-contradictory, clear form which he desires. Previous versions attempted to avoid the WP:NPOV and WP:NOR issues which I think that he has re-introduced into the article.

• While I agree that Nietzsche sees Christianity as nihilistic at its root, the death of God is nonetheless explicitly linked with nihilism in the Prologue. Reconciling these views is not our task.
• The otherworldliness of Christianity is not explicitly linked with Platonism in the initial statements regarding the Übermensch, and I'm not sure where else it is linked (other than in statements about Christianity or Platonism, but not about the Übermensch).
• It is incorrect to say that it is the synthesis of early Christianity and neo-Platonism that gave birth to the concept of the soul, and to limit this to what occurred in Rome: this seems calculated to somehow exempt early Christianity itself from the problems attending an immaterial soul. In any case, Zarathustra's speeches don't lead to this.
• The imperfection of the Übermensch is at odds with the tone of the Prologue, and is incompatible with Lampert's interpretation of why Zarathustra abandons it.
• The idea that the problem with Christianity and metaphysics was its universalism is Heidegger's interpretation, and is not a consensus position.

RJC ^Talk 16:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

....................................................................................................................

I will address all these problems in due course but let me first say this: People look at the article on nihilism you will see there a subtitle called Nietzschean nihilism. Now either this wrong or that is wrong both cant be and this page is in such a grave state of disarry with many people who seem to have an axe to grind against christianity but not philosophy. This page is greatly in error.

• Saying the death of god is linked to nihilism is surley wrong if that god is already nihilistic...explain

• if christianity and platonism are linked in statements about them but not in the ubermensche does that except them from being included in the ubermensche again explain your logic here.

• I personally wouold have removed any mention of the soul as this has nothing to do with the ubermensche you are right that this was a clumsy taking together of the old version and the new version. I will ammend and remove all mention of the soul unless you can come up with any reason why any mention of the soul is here at all. Surley the platonic soul predates any christian soul by a good 400 years. Early christianity (by this i mean the christianity of paul not st augustine did indeed have a less than clear idea about it.

this is from the article early christianty and neoplatonism: Early Christian and Medieval Neoplatonism

Main article: Christianity and Neoplatonism Central tenets of Neoplatonism, such as the absence of good being the source of evil, and that this absence of good comes from human sin, served as a philosophical interim for the Christian theologian Augustine of Hippo on his journey from dualistic Manichaeism to Christianity. When writing his treatise 'On True Religion' several years after his 387 baptism, Augustine's Christianity was still tempered by Neoplatonism, but he eventually decided to abandon Neoplatonism altogether in favor of a Christianity based on his own reading of Scripture. Many other Christians were influenced by Neoplatonism, especially in their identifying the Neoplatonic One, or God, with Jehovah. The most influential of these would be Origen, the pupil of Ammonius Saccas and the fifth-century author known as Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, (whose works were translated by John Scotus in the 9th century for the west) and proved significant for both the Eastern Orthodox and Western branches of Christianity. Neoplatonism also had links with Gnosticism, which Plotinus rebuked in his ninth tractate of the second Enneads: "Against Those That Affirm The Creator of The Kosmos and The Kosmos Itself to Be Evil" (generally known as "Against The Gnostics"). Due to their belief being grounded in Platonic thought, the Neoplatonists rejected gnosticism's vilification of Plato's demiurge, the creator of the material world or cosmos discussed in the Timaeus. Although Neoplatonism has been referred to as orthodox Platonic philosophy by scholars like Professor John D. Turner, this reference may be due in part to Plotinus' attempt to refute certain interpretations of Platonic philosophy, through his Enneads. Plotinus believed the followers of gnosticism had corrupted the original teachings of Plato. Despite the influence this 'pagan' philosophy had on Christianity, Justinian I would hurt later Neoplatonism by ordering the closure of the refounded School of Athens.[6] In the Middle Ages, Neoplatonist ideas influenced Jewish thinkers, such as the Kabbalist Isaac the Blind, and the Jewish Neoplatonic philosopher Solomon ibn Gabirol, who modified it in the light of their own monotheism. Neoplatonist ideas also influenced Islamic and Sufi thinkers such as al Farabi and Avicenna. Neoplatonism survived in the Eastern Christian Church as an independent tradition and was reintroduced to the west by Plethon.

• Lampert says it is abandond because it seems to say that the ubermensche is a perfect goal, saying the ubermensche is imperfect then is preempting the Lampert quote which i think many lay readers will not understand anyway. Also where in the prologue does it imply that the ubermensche is perfect? does it do it tonaly? surley this quote from nie "All beings so far have created something beyond themselves" implies that the ubermensche will to create something beyound itself...I was merely high lighting the fact the ubermensche is a tactic to destroy curreent beliefs in perfect categories, such as man.

• So then what is wrong with christianity? From this pageit seems that nie had no problems with it except the death of god.

Taken from Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche article. "He claimed that the Apostle Paul may have deliberately propagated Christianity as a subversive religion (a "psychological warfare weapon") within the Roman Empire as a form of covert revenge for the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and of the Second Temple in 70 AD during the Jewish War of 66 - 73 AD. Nietzsche contrasts the Christians with Jesus, whom he regarded as a unique individual, and argues he established his own moral evaluations. As such, Jesus represents a kind of step towards his ideation of the overman. Ultimately, however, Nietzsche claims that, unlike the overman, who embraces life, Jesus denied reality in favor of his "kingdom of God." Jesus's refusal to defend himself, and subsequent death, logically followed from this total disengagement. Nietzsche goes further to analyze the history of Christianity, finding it has progressively distorted the teachings of Jesus more and more. He criticizes the early Christians for turning Jesus into a martyr and Jesus's life into the story of the redemption of mankind in order to dominate the masses, and finds the Apostles cowardly, vulgar, and resentful. He argues that successive generations further misunderstood the life of Jesus as the influence of Christianity grew. By the 19th century, Nietzsche concludes, Christianity had become so worldly as to parody itself — a total inversion of a world view which was, in the beginning, nihilistic, thus implying the "death of God."

Again read my notes at bottom of page...I cant change this back yet as am busy but your gonna have to come up with a better arguments. It is our job to properly inform readers - you seem to think that because there is no consensus (ie. many people misinterpret the ubermensche) that means we can be willfully obscure as to what it is an attack against. 78.150.126.79 (talk) 11:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Ouroboros dross

I love to argue philosophy, and so I have to stop myself whenever I post to Wikipedia talk page pages because our job is not to get things right: it is to be be an encyclopedia. The first sentence of the policy on Verifiability reads, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The section on Balance from the Neutral point of view policy page states, "When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page." And even if you and I were to reach some sort of consensus regarding what Nietzsche meant by the Übermensch, we would still have violated the prohibition on original research. The problem is not that many people misinterpret the Übermensch, as you say, but that these people are scholars who have published in reputable journals and with academic preses: they are the epitome of Reliable sources.

So, my response to your various points is, I agree with some, I disagree with others, but that's neither here nor there. I'll go through and note why I think they offend policy rather than probity.

• It does not matter whether in my opinion linking nihilism with the death of god is surely wrong, it has support in the literature.

• My logic regarding the Übermensch, Christianity, and Platonism is that I cannot pursue the logic of an argument. Linking them transitively as you do requires that the Übermensch have remained a vital part of Nietzsche's philosophy, which Lampert denies. Moreover, even presuming that we could ignore Lampert, there is no scholarly consensus on how to link Nietzsche's disparate statements together. Our doing so would be original research.

• Nietzsche mentions the soul explicitly in the prologue, and I don't know of anyone who denies the attack on the soul is a part of Zarathustra's presentation of the Übermensch. What I found to be original research was the suggestion that the soul which he attacks is the result of a synthesis of early Christianity and neo-Platonism, as though early Christianity on its own wasn't a sufficient object of condemnation, or as though they couldn't have invented it without the help of the neo-Platonists.

One final item: I notice that you keep using the form Übermensche. I think standard practice in rendering German words into English is to use their nominative case exclusively. Unless I am mistaken, Übermensche is dative. RJC ^Talk 16:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

..............................................................................................

• It does not matter whether in my opinion linking nihilism with the death of god is surely wrong, it has support in the literature - what litr4ature? find an example and cite it, by this I mean find an example where the death of god is linked to the danger of nihilism relating to Nietzches thought and not just someone using the word nihilism, which has a different meaning in his anti-philosophy.

• Linking them transitively as you do requires that the Übermensch have remained a vital part of Nietzsche's philosoph - not so, rather attacking Christianity and metaphysics remain vital to Nietzches ANTI-philosophy, and all statements he makes should seen in this light.

• While Early Christianity is easy to condemn it seems a great leap to presume that they exist seperate from Platonic theory and that they may have come to platonic forms, such as the soul, without any contamination of their thought by neo-platonism. "or as though they couldn't have invented it without the help of the neo-Platonists" I rather doubt they would or could have - It seems to me that all the great thinkers of Christianty were philosophers as we know it. Infact as the page is now it would seem that the christians actually created the idea of the soul...The Christian escape from this world also required the invention of a soul which would be separate from the body and survive the body's death...Personally I would like a citation from a reputable source who makes the claim that the christians arnt influenced by neo-platonism.

• Also the page, as it is now, does indeed link christianty, Platonism and the ubermensch - but in a greatly impovrished way, for instance...

In the The Death of God and the Creation of New Values, it starts by making the claim that "the death of God, meaning specifically the Christian God", and then two paragraphs down seemingly contradicting this claim by refering to a relapse into...Platonic Idealism or asceticism, the creation of these new values cannot be motivated by the same instincts that gave birth to those tables of values...

So, if im reading this correctly and im sure you will correct me if im wrong, it seems that although this page bandies round words such as Christianity, Platonism, Truth ect. there is ultimatly within its passages some value system shared by them all ie. those tables of values. This is why I think this page is badly confused, superficially it seperates these apparently differing view points but constantly keeps coming back to them and structurally linking them. In cleaning it up I tried to make these structural similarities explicit; as they are to anyone looking deep into what is actually being said and hinted at.

This page is not only bad but misleading - As you can see this isnt original research but is based on what is already in this article.

I will however take onboard everything you have pointed out, in rewritting it I will cite differing opinions about the views of Nietzche...But then a citation is needed for...belief in that God nevertheless did give life meaning for a time. The time has come when serious human beings can no longer believe in God, however — God is dead, meaning that the idea of God can no longer provide values. With the sole source of values no longer capable of providing those values, there is a real danger of nihilism...While this maynot strictly be untrue, it is hardly in the spirit (no pun intended) of Nietzche and as someone else in the talk page has noted seems to be written by a first year philosophy student. It is the idea of God, the idea of the One and total perfect being, that is dead. Not God as a personification, which as i have said is a very supervicial and even misleading interpretation.Ouroborosdross (talk) 07:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure we can see how this works in the details. If you can find a reliable source for everything you say, I'll find some to support that scholars say something else. If you don't like something, the {{fact}} template should work just fine. As to this article's having been written by a first year philosophy student, that comment was made of an old version which has been completely replaced. I will note that if you object to something as superficial and misleading, it probably violates NPOV to expunge it: everything superficial and misleading has some support in the literature. I think that most of what has been written about Nietzsche is utter crap, but that doesn't permit me to pretend that it was not written. RJC ^Talk 15:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm tired of grading papers, and just can't resist.

• Lampert, Nietzsche's Teaching, p. 17: "The God who once lived and provided a sun for this earth is now dead, and now longer supplies a horizon to man's world (GS 125)." And on the next page, Lampert states, "Zarathustra has not yet learned that the death of God must be followed by a long twilight of piety and nihilism (II. 19; III. 8). […] Zarathustra's gift of the superman is given to a mankind not aware of the problem to which the superman is the solution."
• Ansell-Pearson, Nietzsche contra Rousseau, p. 159: "the overman is a contingent ideal whose willing only makes sense in the context of nihilism and the death of God."
• Heidegger, "The Word of Nietzsche," in Question Concerning Technology and other essays, trans. William Lovitt, p. 57: "Nietzsche's thinking sees itself as belongin under the heading 'nihilism.'" Heidegger then quotes (p. 60) from Gay Science 343: "The greatest recent event — that 'God is dead,' that the belief in the Christian god has become unbelievable — is already beginning to cast its first shadows over Europe." P. 61: "If God as the suprasensory ground and goal of all reality is dead, if the suprasensory world of the Ideas has suffered the loss of its obligatory and above it its vitalizing and upbuilding power, then nothing more remains to which man can cling and by which he can orient himself." Etc.

As to not getting drawn into OR on the talk pages, well, shucks, here it goes. In the First Essay of the Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche shows the construction of the immortal soul, Hell, God (and somewhere along the way, Heaven) out of the spirit of ressentiment pure and simple, without requiring that clever step to have been taught to them by some neo-Platonist scholar. As to the idea that all great thinkers in the Christian tradition were philosophers, I really don't know what to say. If philosophers have had to don the mask of asceticism to make themselves frightful, if they have had to occasionally appear as holy men, as Nietzsche says they must in the Third Essay of GM, then surely there must be the genuine article which they only pretend to be. How could Nietzsche cite Aquinas and Tertullian as evidence of the slave revolt in morals if they were actually guided by the Will to Truth? How is probity our virtue if it was fully shared by the apostles: wouldn't they, too, have had to have been too Christian to believe in the Christian god? Or do you mean to exclude from the "great thinkers of Christianity" Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and Peter? I'm not sure I have to deny a linkage between early Christianity and neo-Platonism; it seems that Nietzsche does not blame Christianity on the neo-Platonists, and that is enough for an article on Nietzsche's thought. RJC ^Talk 17:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

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. Ouroborosdross (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The Death of God and the Creation of New Values

making changes here as the death of god has nothing to do with nihilism. rather it is to do with an end to universal values...Ouroborosdross (talk) 06:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

like i said

I welcome inputOuroborosdross (talk) 09:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I c that someone wasnt happy with what i had written so then lets go through sentance by sentance why the new version is better than the old one..................

OLD V: Nietzsche introduces the concept of the Übermensch in contrast to the other-worldliness of Christianity: Zarathustra proclaims the Übermensch to be the meaning of the earth and admonishes his audience to ignore those who promise other-worldly hopes in order to draw them away from the earth.

i HAVE ADDED THE SLAVE MORALITY BIT TO HIT HOME THE INHERENT NIHILISM OF CHRISTIANTY WHICH THE PREVIOUS VERSION MAKES A PIG EAR OF. PLEASE LOOK AT NIHILISM TO UNDERSTAND.

NEW V: Nietzche introduces the concept of the Ubermensche in contrast to the other-worldliness of Christianity, which he claims stems from slave morality and so is essentially nihilistic: Zarathustra proclaims the Übermensch to be the meaning of the earth and admonishes his audience to ignore those who promise another life after death that is perfect, or a world of perfect ideals that exists separate from our own.

OLD V:The turn away from the earth is prompted, he says, by a dissatisfaction with life, a dissatisfaction that causes one to create another world in which those who made one unhappy in this life are tormented. The Übermensch is not driven into other worlds away from this one.

oK SO HERE WE CAN SEE THAT THIS SENTABCE ALLUDES TO CHRISTIANTY BEING NIHILISTIC IE. those who made one unhappy in this life are tormented. A CLEAR ALLUSION TO HELL. i HAVE CHANGED DISSATISFACTION TO RESENTFULNESS AS RESENTFULLNESS IS THE WORD USED BY Nietzche. ALSO ADDED A REFERENCE TO PLATONIC FORMS AS THE CHRISTIAN GOD IS AN AMALGAMATION OF NEOPLATONISM AND CHRIST. AGAIN THIS IS ALLUDED TO IN THE OLD VERSION BUT NOT MADE EXPLICIT.

NEW V:The turn away from the earth is prompted, he says, by a resentfulness of life, a dissatisfaction that causes one to create another world in which those who made one unhappy in this life are tormented, all bad things made good and everything exists as a perfected Platonic form not the degenerate forms that exist in the world of matter. The Übermensch is not driven into other worlds away from this one.

OLD V: The Christian escape from this world also required the invention of a soul which would be separate from the body and survive the body's death. Part of other-worldliness, then, was the denigration and mortification of the body, or asceticism. Zarathustra further links the Übermensch to the body and to interpreting the soul as simply an aspect of the body.

AGAIN HERE I AM MAKING EXPLICIT THE FACT THAT THE UBERMENSCHE AND THE DEATH OF GOD IS NOT JUST AN ATTACK ON CHRISTIANITY BUT ALSO PLATONISM (ST AUGUSTINE FUSED THE TWO TOGETHER). i AM ALSO SHOWING THE SUBTLETY OF WHAT Nietzsche IS DOING HERE. HE IS SMASHING THE CATEGORY OF MAN BY SAYING HE IS JUST A TRANSITION - THIS ALSO FITS IN BETTER WITH WHAT IS SAID BELOW IN RELATION TO ETERNAL REACUETC. IE. This is in part due to the fact that even the Übermensch can appear like an other-worldly hope. Stanley Rosen, on the other hand, suggests that the doctrine of eternal return is an esoteric ruse meant to save the concept of the Übermensch from the charge of Idealism

NEW V: The synthesis of early Christianity and Neoplatonism, that occurred in the Roman empire (see Neoplatonism and Christianity), created a perfect other world. In death the perfect part of a being, the soul, left the corrupt body and earth arriving in the perfect afterlife. Part of other-worldliness, then, was the denigration and mortification of the body, or asceticism and the raising up of the imaterial and metaphysical. Concepts such as truth and nature existed as perfect forms in another world that does not change, is static, uncorruptable by time etc. Zarathustra further links the Übermensch to the body by opposing it to metaphysical forms and asceticism, and so making it more life-affirming.

OLD V: As the drama of Thus Spoke Zarathustra progresses, the turn to metaphysics in philosophy and Platonism in general come to light as manifestations of other-worldiness, as well. Truth and nature are inventions by means of which men escape from this world. The Übermensch is also free from these failings.

FIRST SENTANCE HERE IS WORDY SO REMOVED. iT ALSO CLUNKELY INTRODUCES THE PLATONIC IDEALISM THAT I HAVE WORKED IN EARLIER. tHE NEW VERSION EXPLAINS THE DIALECTICS AND CATEGORIES BETTER.

NEW V : Nietzche’s irony here is that he posits the Ubermensche as the opposite to man in the sense that man is made in Gods image. The soul is the perfect form of man that exists in the perfect otherworld. The Ubermensche on the other hand is the next step in human evolution, therefore bringing into question a perfect human form, bringing into question a perfect other world. It is important to note that the Ubermensche is not a perfected human being; rather it is one of the many next steps of man that also includes the last man.

The Death of God and the Creation of New Values

OLD V :Zarathustra ties the Übermensch to the death of God, meaning specifically the Christian God. While this God was the ultimate expression of other-worldly values and the instincts that gave birth to those values, belief in that God nevertheless did give life meaning for a time. The time has come when serious human beings can no longer believe in God, however — God is dead, meaning that the idea of God can no longer provide values. With the sole source of values no longer capable of providing those values, there is a real danger of nihilism.

tHE 2ND SENTABCE HERE IS AT THE LEAST MISLEADING AND AT THE WORST NOT EVEN WRONG. belief in that God nevertheless did give life meaning for a time...WHAT IS THIS SUPPOSED TO MEAN? THE MONOTOTHESISM OF THE WEST IS HATED BY Nietzche BECAUSE IT POSSITS ONLY ONE MEANING FOR EVERYTHING. sINCE THE CHRISTIAN GOD IN Nietzche’s VIEW IS ALREADY NIHILISTIC IT IS BEYOND COMPREHENSION THAT HIS DEATH SHOULD CAUSE THE THING THAT IT ALREDY IS...PLEASE READ NIHILISM

THE DEATH GOD PUTS AN END TO UNIVERSAL VALUES. THE NEW VERSION HITS THIS HOME BY GIVING HUMANISM (UNIVRESAL HUMAN RIGHTS) AND COMMUNISM AS EXAMPLES OF CONCEPTS THAT SUPERCEDED GOD. cOULD HAVE USED FACISM ETC.

NEW V:The Death of God and the Creation of New Values Nietzche ties the Übermensch to the death of God, meaning specifically the Christian God; which as mentioned above is a synthesis of early Christianity and Neo-Platonism. The central tenant being that God created and was the cause of everything and his values were universal. As science in the West progressed, and it became increasingly hard to believe in God, many people turned to world encompassing ideas such as Humanism and Communism, whose values are also universal.

OLD V:Zarathustra presents the Übermensch as the creator of new values. In this way, it appears as a solution to the problem of the death of God and nihilism. Because the Übermensch acts to create new values within the moral vacuum of nihilism, there is nothing that this creative act would not justify. Alternatively, in the absence of this creation, there are no grounds upon which to criticize or justify any action, including the particular values created and the means by which they are promulgated.

tHIS JUST GOES ON TO EXPLAIN THE ABOVE.

NEW V:While the god of Christianity had fallen from favor the belief in universal ideas went from strength to strength during this period, and it is this that Nietzche goes to such pains to explain to us; that although God is dead people do not know it yet and continue to hold universal values and truths in the highest regard. The Übermensch, therefore, would hold his own values and beliefs to be his own and other people might not have a right to his beliefs. As such it is possible for the Übermensch to create new values and not be hindered by the fact that a universal value system would need a static, infinite metaphysical system that has to stand up to the law of non-contradiction. Also because the Übermensch acts to create new values within the moral vacuum of nihilism, there is nothing that this creative act would not justify. Alternatively, in the absence of unified meaning, there are no grounds upon which to criticize or justify any action, including the particular values created and the means by which they are promulgated as long as it is life-affirming.

OLD V: In order to avoid a relapse into Platonic Idealism or asceticism, the creation of these new values cannot be motivated by the same instincts that gave birth to those tables of values. Instead, they must be motivated by a love of this world and of life. Whereas Nietzsche diagnosed every value-system hitherto known as a reaction against life and hence destructive in a sense, the new values which the Übermensch will be responsible for will be life-affirming and creative.

OLD VERSION CLUNKELY SAYS WHAT THE NEW VERSION HAS ALREADY SAID IE.cannot be motivated by the same instincts that gave birth to those tables of values. PUT UNIVERSAL INFRONT OF VALUE SYSTEM AS I FIND IT HARD TO BELEAVE THAT NIETZCHE WOULD THINK THAT ANY VALUE SYSTEM IS NIHILISTIC WHILE ALSO THINKING THAT HAVING NO VALUES IS ALSO NIHILISTIC.

NEW V:In order to avoid a relapse into Platonic Idealism or asceticism, the creation of these new values cannot be motivated by the same instincts that gave birth to those tables of values. Instead, they must be motivated by a love of this world and of life. Whereas Nietzsche diagnosed every universal value-system hitherto known as a reaction against life and hence destructive in a sense, the new values which the Übermensch will be responsible for will be life-affirming and creative.

AND THATS THAT THE REST OF THE ARTICLE IS WRITTEN WELL AAND MAKES SENSE.89.241.230.74 (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That all sounds like a POV to me. Zazaban (talk) 05:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

nihilism and the death of god

Swapped passage illuding to nietzches nihilism and the death of god causing a "real danger of nihilism????" With a passage from Nihilism sub heading Nietzsches nihilism...wich im sure no one here can disagree is Nietzsches view of nihilism! If you think you can then pls discuss b4 reverting.(GuiltyHAL (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC))

See the above discussion entitled Reversion, where I list secondary sources that make the claim you says is at odds with Nietzsche. I am therefore reverting your changes as original research. RJC ^Talk 03:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the term

Might want to mention that the term "Uebermensch" was lifted from Goethe's Faust. Not sure what the exact line is, but I believe it's very early in Faust I in the "Vor dem Tor" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.66.210.20 (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

According to this Google Books page, it is line 490 in the Nacht section. That same source says that Goethe may not have created the term, however, instead adopting it from theologians. Is there any secondary source treatment of where Nietzsche got the idea to use this word? RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 16:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In popular culture

I've removed the In popular culture section which are discouraged according to Wikipedia:Trivia sections guidelines. --Loremaster (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not true - the guideline states, "Migrate trivia items to prose, or to focused lists (such as "Cameos" or "References in popular culture")". Korny O'Near (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. It seems that the Wikipedia:Trivia sections guidelines have been updated since I last read them. I will restore the In popular culture section. However, I encourage everyone to follow Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles guidelines. --Loremaster (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The role of Woman

Many have intrepreted Nietzsche's philosophy as hateful towards women because it is contrary to feminist doctrine. In point of fact, Nietzsche argued that feminism was hateful towards women and the role of the feminine in nature.

Nietzsche simply viewed women as secondary--even saying they have "an instinct for the secondary". What this means is that while Woman does play a very important role in the development of Man into the Superman, Woman herself has no goal other than to help man achieve his goal--a compass, in and of itself, has no purpose except to help someone find their way. Therefore, his argument against feminism was very similiar to his argument against Christianity--that it is a hinderance to the instinctual drives of man and an obstacle in the way of Man becoming Superman.

"What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal: what is lovable in man is that he is an OVER-GOING and a DOWN-GOING."

In the course of this 'over-going' and 'down-going' women act as a sort of compass. The closer a man is to being the Superman, the more attractive women will find him and the more control he will possess of both females and his own feminity. See: Malakia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosaj27 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A question for Wikipedia

If Wikipedia is logical, it would censor all anti-democratic ideologists, esp. one embedded in the literate public mind, like Nietzsche. Democracy is the essence of freedom, and the implicit basis of wikipedia. Nietzsche's worldview would never allow democratic, communitarian/social experiments like Wikipedia to exist, so what's with the moral outrage about twisting his words for the sake of democracy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.148.192 (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

YOu need to read up on WIkipedia policy ad stop reverting the page until you do. --Snowded (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)