From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Ridiculous whitewashing on antisemitism[edit]

He said terrible things about Jews and you are just trying to write them off. This needs more balance.

“Whatever else has been done to damage the powerful and great of this earth seems trivial compared with what the Jews have done, that priestly people who succeeded in avenging themselves on their enemies and oppressors by radically inverting all their values, that is, by an act of the most spiritual vengeance. This was a strategy entirely appropriate to a priestly people in whom vindictiveness had gone most deeply underground. It was the Jew who, with frightening consistency, dared to invert the aristocratic value equations good/noble/powerful/beautiful/ happy/favored-of-the-gods and maintain, with the furious hatred of the underprivileged and impotent, that “only the poor, the powerless, are good; only the suffering, sick, and ugly, truly blessed. But you noble and mighty ones of the earth will be, to all eternity, the evil, the cruel, the avaricious, the godless, and thus the cursed and damned!”

Another Reference[edit]

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[edit]

Should we create an article called free spirits?

The Antichrist[edit]

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. 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 (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[edit]

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. 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)

On translation issues I do agree with many who have stated "human" is a better than the term "man." Though we used to use the term "man" or "mankind" in english to refer to all of humanity, we have since stopped doing that. In my readings of Nietzsche, I'm pretty certain he was not specifically singling out the biological sex of the Übermensch... ergo, it makes little sense to translate it as "overman" "superman" or any of that. As for the other half, I concur with the term "over." If we must translate the word into english, I would suggest "overhuman." As they would be "over" or "beyond" the human weakness of slave morality and would laugh at the human as the human laughs at the ape to paraphrase Nietzsche. The overhuman, or Übermensch (which I think is the term we should stick with, no need for translation), in my interpretation of Nietzsche, and I've been reading his work since the age of 12, I'm now 30, so I'm no expert, but I'm quite familiar with his work, so much so that I spend more time searching for citations when I know I've referenced him in an article or paper than actually writing... but I digress. The "overhuman" is above and beyond humanity in everything, not in the sense of an umpire, or someone with alienated power aka "authority." Basically it is the culmination of all of Nietzsche's important concepts. The Übermensch is in many ways grows out of an extreme version of master morality and has an active, rather than reactive, will-to-power. An Übermensch is the epitome of strength, so strong that punishment, cruelty, and revenge are not necessary... this is not due to "morality" but rather their strength of will-to-power. An Übermensch would be entirely guided by the will-to-power, rather than the will-to-nothingness of the standard human. Also, I think "over" is a good translation, because Nietzsche loved the imagery of the flight of birds... and the Übermensch would be above or over all the nastiness of the weak and slavish humans. So if we must translate "overhuman" seems best to me, but honestly the term Übermensch should be one of those words that are so complex and powerful that they are not translated... just as Nietzsche never translated the French term ressentement into German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Does the word "Übermensch" to Nietzsche mean someone who is actually a superior human being or just someone with an air of superiorty? He says humanity is a rope stretched between "Übermensch" and Beast. --Jbergquist (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

"Man" as male[edit]

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? Does misogyny need to be taken into consideration? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shk9664 (talkcontribs) 19:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Misogyny cannot change the German language. "Mensch" is gender neutral. In English, "man" can be gender neutral, but these days it is generally assumed to not be. Zazaban (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
In the sense that 'mensch' is gender neutral, the whole english language is gender neutral. English doesn't have gender associated with words! The word 'man' has no gender. The concept 'man' may have a gender. So to claim the word 'man' is male in english is a severe abuse of the language. In any case, 'man' can be used to refer to the human race. This is proper usage. And as i'm pretty sure man and mensch are derived from the same root and are basically the same word, this discussion is ridiculous. -- (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
"Man" should be thought of as two words: one of which means 'a male of the human race' and the other basically means 'the human race'. "Mensch" basically means "human", which is the "man" meaning 'the human race'. Technically the statement is correct: it means 'Human' is less male than 'man'. But it is kind of misleading. SSBDelphiki (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
IIRC, NIetzsche wrote that the greatest possible role for a woman was to bring forth the Übermencsh - not to be one herself. I'm pretty sure Nietzsche intended the word to be read in a gendered way. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 08:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

its all so mixed up[edit]

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)


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. (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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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.


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.


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.


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.



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.


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.


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.


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

nihilism and the death of god[edit]

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[edit]

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 (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)
"La notion de surhumanité ou de surhumain n'a pas été inventée par Nietzsche et daterait du xviie siècle." This line has been copied from the French article and means that the term actually dates back to the 17th century. This being the case, I just wonder why my contribution on Sri Aurobindo's spiritual superman has been deleted. The title of this article is not "Nietzsche's Übermensch", but simply "Übermensch". So I don't understand the argument it has been deleted because the concept is so different from Nietzsche's. This is a wide subject and there is no reason at all to limit it to Nietzsche. I request the admins to re-consider the removal of my text. The reason given is not valid at all, and in other languages the subject is treated as openly as it should be with this particular title. If you require more evidence that Nietzsche has not invented the term, I will present it. Incidentally, in the German article it says in line 3, "Die weitaus bekannteste Übermensch-Konzeption stammt von Friedrich Nietzsche", "The most well-known Übermensch-concept goes back to Friedrich Nietzsche." So there are other, less well-known concepts, and I fail to understand why they should not be presented. --Raimundo (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
It was removed because it was about a religious or spiritual concept which is only extremely loosely connected to Neitsche's concept. Further, Wikipedia is not a promotional medium to advertise the ideas of Aurobindo. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Sri Aurobindo has been twice nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature, his statue has been placed on the compound of the UNESCO in Paris (see YouTube Video) and the Indian President Ram Nath Kovind has called him “one of the greatest sages of modern India” in a message to Auroville on January 28, 2018. And the American philosopher Ken Wilber wrote in the Preface of a book: “Aurobindo’s genius was not merely that he captured the profundity of India’s extraordinary spiritual heritage. He was the first great philosopher-sage to deeply grasp the nature and meaning of the modern idea of evolution.” So what else is needed to make him an eminent personality whose ideas should necessarily be expounded in the Wikipedia as an informational medium? What he wrote in his essay “The Superman” is highly relevant to the subject of Übermensch, no matter whether it’s closely related to Nietzsche or not. However, I understand you have made your final decision, o.k., let it be so.--Raimundo (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Nothing you've written has any bearing on whether the concept Aurobindo is talking about has any strong relationship to the Nietzschean concept of the Übermensch. I deem that it does not. If you get a consensus of editors to agree with you here -- being careful not to WP:CANVASS friendly editors to this page -- then the material can be restored. Until then, it stays out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for your proposal. I don’t know any editors who might be in a position to support my case, but I can present some very substantial textual evidence. There is a German title “Der Übermensch bei (with) Friedrich Nietzsche und Sri Aurobindo”, ISBN-13: 978-3894277222 In the Amazon text it says that the book is a revised version of a Ph.D. dissertation (L.A., 1978). So evidently, if a university accepts this as a subject for a comparative study and if a German publisher brings it out, there must be some common ground to justify such an investigation. I have the book with me here, the author publishes at the end all the passages in which Sri Aurobindo refers to Nietzsche, and these numerous passages fill a total of 11 pages. The key statement of the Amazon text is, summarized, that with the help of Aurobindo’s thought we get better access to some of Nietzsche’s ideas, and that through the comparison with Nietzsche we may also be able to better appreciate some of Aurobindo’s concepts. I may add: The author shows that Nietzsche had different ideas of the Übermensch at different stages and in different writings (Rüdiger Safranski also says this in his standard work, mentioned in the Bibliography) and sometimes comes close to Sri Aurobindo (especially in Zarathustra), whereas in other passages there is a great difference. --Raimundo (talk) 10:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Raimundo and Beyond My Ken: I've been following the conversation. I just want to put my 2 cents in that I strongly agree with Beyond My Ken. Raimundo A Wikipedia article is not supposed to include every possible alternative interpretation or theory about the topic by every author. Nietzsche, and his ideas such as the Ubermensch are especially problematic because there must be hundreds if not thousands of PhD theses each with a different view as to what he meant by the topic or how his ideas related to those of Freud, Marx, or countless other thinkers. The guidelines at Identifying_reliable_sources are clear that while a thesis may be a legitimate reference that is only the case if the thesis was written by a known expert on the topic and/or has been significantly referenced by other experts. A good example of a reliable source thesis is Terry Winograd's thesis on an AI planning system which was referenced by many AI experts in future work. The thesis you are referencing doesn't come close to meeting that standard. I found the thesis you are referencing on Amazon and here is an excerpt of the translation of the summary: "a dissertation written by the author in the Department of Comparative Religious Studies at the University of Oriental Studies, Los Angeles, in 1978. It is the first comparative exploration of the trains of thought of Friedrich Nietzsche and Sri Aurobindo The aim of the work was to show a method how this comparison can be carried out in a creative way, while at the same time offering a larger number of quotes from the works of the two authors, which are important for the subject. The book should help not only to better understand Nietzsche from Aurobindo, but also to pay tribute to Nietzsche Aurobindo's own outstanding achievement in the field of transcendental thinking..." This IMO is clearly not a significant part of mainstream analysis or criticism of Nietzsche's thought. If it belongs anywhere it would be in an article about Aurobindo. I have read virtually all Nietzsche's work, taken classes that discussed him and read several of the most prominent scholars who discuss him such as Walter Kaufmann and I've never heard of Aurobindo. The fact that Aurobindo won a Nobel prize or has some other accolades is irrelevant to whether his work constitutes a reliable source on the topic of Nietzsche. If you look at Aurobindo's work on Amazon he seems to be some type of Indian mystic which puts him well outside the mainstream of both Anglo American and European continental philosophy that Nietzsche primarily was influenced by and where he is most commonly discussed. But what is most important is that you haven't provided any supporting references to show that this thesis and the ideas about Nietzsche and Aurobindo have been discussed by Nietzsche scholars or other recognized experts. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
When the great German scientist Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker travelled to India in 1969, he visited the Sri Aurobindo Ashram and informed himself about Sri Aurobindo’s thought. But if you feel that Wiki readers should not be informed about Sri Aurobindo’s new philosophy of Übermensch in this article, be it so. He is not mainstream, surely, but what is mainstream today has often started as side-stream, struggling for recognition. There is no Wiki rule excluding full information about the term Übermensch in all its aspects. You have made it a dogma that Übermensch = Nietzsche = Übermensch. I don’t share it, nor do other editors share it in other Wiki languages where the full cultural history is explored. The German article even has a text on and of Albert Schweitzer (not written by me), although it has no real connection to Nietzsche and his philosophy. And yet it is relevant, and readers will appreciate to learn about it.--Raimundo (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
P.S. I forgot to refer to your point reg. the reception of the book. Frankly speaking, I have no knowledge about it. But I guess there are very few people in the academic world who are at home in both systems. It’s rather the Indologists who would be familiar with Sri Aurobindo. As for the cover text, it is as a rule written by the publishers to attract more readers. Be that as it may, I realize now that my contribution is not welcome at this place and will therefore try it elsewhere or drop it entirely. --Raimundo (talk) 06:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

why was sri aurobindo seection deleted? i do not edit on wikipedia but i found it strange for it to be removed, its not about 'advertising' his ideas, its very related to the concept of ubermensch.

In popular culture[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 21:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, add this to the page. Just remember to clean it up a bit, and add references. Cosman246 (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

A question for Wikipedia[edit]

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 (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)

haha. looks like someone is scared of an idea. cretinous beyond belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Responding to comments from 51 weeks ago? That reminds me, we need an article about the Procrastinators Club. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
It is possible that he never says anything unless it is worth taking a long time to say. RJC TalkContribs 04:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I realize I should just Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass but I had to add that the Internet user should realize that Wikipedia is an attempt to be an objective encyclopedia, not to advocate any political agenda, although in any case I strongly disagree with his statements about Nietzsche. Nietzsche is wrongly associated with totalitarian states, especially Nazi Germany, because when he died his work was taken over by his sister and her husband who were essentially Nazis, although the name hadn't been used yet. Also, while Nietzsche was alive he used some of his most virulent rhetoric AGAINST what were then called the "Das Reich" community (anti-semites who believed in German empire). Nietzsche also broke with one of his best friends and someone he considered a musical genius: Richard Wagner, precisely because Wagner embraced the same proto-Nazis that Nietzsche despised. I encourage people to read Walter Kaufmann's book Nietzsche: Philosophy, Psychologist, Antichrist for more details. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Why is the Medic reference delete on sight?[edit]

I just decided to read up on the article and saw it wasn't in the popular culture section. Was just about to edit it in there when I saw the little line about it being deleted on sight... Why exactly is that? It's still a reference damnit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a notable reference. If we included everything, the whole article would be a list. Zazaban (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I care to disagree, by what standards are the references already listed so clearly important? It's not like Andromeda and Superman are paragons of intellectual thought. They're clearly on the same level(a passing reference and a vague similarity to the superficial aspects of the concept, a man that is superior to his kin) and not all too important to the understanding of the idea of the Ubermensch. Not to mention the Jack Vance reference, though in use of the term, clearly refers to a more Machiavellian line of thought than one originating from Nietzche. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hitler / Master race ref in popular culture section[edit]

I've removed:

"Hitler's Master Race was also inspired by selected passages of Nietzsche's vision of the Übermensch as the human race's future superiority, though Nietzsche himself vehemently criticised both anti-semitism and German nationalism."

Because it is misleading in that the master race concept was primarily biological, coming from Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain rather than coming from Nietzsche's philosophical/metaphysical idea of the Übermensch. (See Master race).

It is also inadequate to try to sum up the influence of Nietzsche on the Nazis in a couple of sentences, and an 'In popular culture' section is not the place to do it. (See Influence and reception of Friedrich Nietzsche#Nietzsche and fascism).Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The new section by Pfistermeister is much more like it, I think. A couple of points:
I can't get to the webpage referenced in 12: - I just get an error. Is this transient web trouble, or is that link dead?
We can probably find a better reference than TruTV Crime Library (ref 11) - the links between Nazism and Nietzsche have been extensively written about by historians.
Finally, AGF applies in edit summaries. I'm not here pushing an agenda. Thanks. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
No way did Nz deliberately Nazism; if anything, "superman" was an upper-class anarchy-based attempt to divorce fascistic-type control. But Nz was close to Wagner, and I say "it's impossible that Nazism was not influenced by the Ring Cycle, no way!"--John Bessa (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
With some reading here on the WP, it seems his anti-Semitic sister, Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche, is solely responsible for the Nazi connection. She had his notes hacked and reconstructed to read something like Mein Kamf and released them as the The Will to Power, which sounds much a lot like Hitler's "Triumph of the Will." She received flowers from Hitler for Nz's grave.
Not that Nz didn't write things Nazis liked, such as the idea that men are for fighting and women are for birthing fighters, which sounds Spartan. His hate for democracy also excited Nazis, but that does not make him Nazi-like. I see Nz along an egotist-anarchist parallel (as opposed to social anarchy) where he perceives the "democratic norm" as an oppressor because the majority tends to cooperate with the oligarchy. And we know (from this article) that he opposed the oligarchy. But, as I see it, his distrust of the majority also parallels the Socratic paranoia that Athenian democracy was so "out to get them" that reached a point where the Socratics successfully converted the paranoia into a self-fulfilled prophecy. The Socratics, needless to say, supported Sparta over their host city of Athens.--John Bessa (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The Nazi section seems to be biased. In particular: "The term Übermensch was a favourite of Hitler and the Nazi regime, which borrowed selectively (and superficially) from Nietzsche's work". "...selectively (and superficially)" is an editorialization. It suggests two things: that Nietzsche's work was incompatible with Nazism, and that the Nazis knowingly distorted it. It seems rather more likely that the Nazis were genuinely inspired by Nietzsche, regardless of whether they may have disagreed with him here or there. The fact that he may or may not have disagreed with them if he had lived that long does not mean that the thrust of his ideas didn't bear a strong and genuine resemblance to the philosophy of the Nazis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I always thought the nazi's used the phrase "untermensch" for the slavs and poles. The only time I hear about ubermench is on here which is why I sort of think it might not be based on any sources, it'd just be an odd thing to say, when he could just as easily say german-blooded or superior, leader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Death of God[edit]

"Platonic Idealism" --> "Plato's theory of forms"

I want to make this change because I am finding that (in real life) Plato is confused with a lot of other things. For instance, Platonic ideals (probably really Socrates' virtues) tend to be an abstraction of God's morality in the Roman Church. (This comes from my formerly-atheist professor, Dr "Mabuze.") As we are discussing Nz's death of God, I don't think that something that tends to describe a resurrection of God is appropriate.

My statement assumes that the article is correct about Nz, of course, as there are no citations in the paragraph.--John Bessa (talk) 14:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


Zarathusthra, I thought, lived & died a thousand yrs before Christ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Why is this relevant? Cosman246 (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The actual person Zarathustra lived in the sixth century BC (I think). The character Zarathustra in Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra is named after the historical figure but is not meant to be the same person. (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is the Übermensch then?[edit]

This article discusses a hypothetical 'great man' yet it does not make it clear exactly what the Übermensch is supposed to mean setting an arbitrary standard of greatness, or what purpose the Übermensch would serve.--X sprainpraxisL (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Scholars disagree on the answer to those questions, the article can't really take a stand. RJC TalkContribs 17:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
True, but I think the introduction should at least give a broad summary about what the main stands are. "There is no overall consensus regarding the precise meaning of the Übermensch" is fine to say, but it is unhelpful when it stands alone. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with OP this whole article seems to dance around the subject.Averagejoedev (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think he's talking about psychopaths. (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it was widely accepted that the concept of Übermensch was related to Eugenics, yet the clear bond between the two is not touched thoroughly on in the article. This is what I, as I wrote earlier, I believe the article is dancing around.Averagejoedev (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't know that there is consensus on that point. I think that you are correct that the two are related, but do you have secondary sources that discuss that point? We also need to avoid giving undue weight to a theory because it happens to be one that we have handy, I think. RJC TalkContribs 23:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

style of writing[edit]

I must admit: It is quite a trivial question, but isn't the term Übermensch supposed to be written in italics, since it is German?--Der Spion (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


Why does Nietzsche's original German use the word "Ubermenschen" rather than just "Ubermensch"?

If this is a plural, why is it not translated to "Supermen"? I suspect that it is some grammatical/stylistic thing - I was trying to find out from this article ...

Here is a bit of a quote from Zarathustra (from

Ich lehre euch den Übermenschen. Der Mensch ist Etwas, das überwunden werden soll. Was habt ihr gethan, ihn zu überwinden?

Was ist der Affe für en Menschen? Ein Gelächter oder eine schmerzliche Scham. Und ebendas soll der Mensch für den Übermenschen sein: ein Gelächter oder eine schmerzliche Scham. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

This is due to accusative case (although all cases except for the nominative use Menschen in German [1]). E.g. "I teach you about him" and "What is the ape to him". (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Removing one tag from pop culture section[edit]

Right now there are 2 tags on the pop culture section. I’m going to remove the first one that says the article contains trivial, minor, etc. refs to pop culture. I think the tag was inappropriately applied. The tag seems meant for a whole article, I.e., if an article were nothing but a list of bullet points to cultural references. But for the pop culture references section of an article, such a bullet format is the norm and I think trying to warp the various references into one coherent narrative would inevitably be OR. I’ve reviewed the references and almost all seem clearly appropriate and well referenced. However, there were a few that were iffy so I’m leaving the second tag and if I have time I’m going to see if I can find references where needed. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)