Can someone explain to me the concept of the Ubermensch from Niezche's Thus said Zaratustra?

I wonder if you misunderstood why I added that intentionally, or if you truly are impaired

>he believes to be completely free from the influences of close family, society, culture, religion and friends

you truly are king edge here. how many katanas are there in your collection?

the funniest thing is that with this
>In the most brief terms the Ubermensch is an individual who is able to serve as their own self-sufficient source of morality and meaning now that god is dead.
you are basically agreeing with me

The ubermensch is the lightening in the clouds. He is to man as man is to ape. He is the one who has gone over and then gone under, and loves going under. He is Overman.

>strawman
I didn't say I am. I said what you're describing isn't all that impressive and many people would fit that criteria. Not to mention it's a total cop-out to say "that's edgy" if you think someone is trying to claim your bastardized idea of Overmanhood.

>you are basically agreeing with me
You are a mega-brainlet and I'm sceptical you've read Nietzsche at all.

Being a self-sufficient source of morality and meaning does not mean you don't derive these things from others, deriving them from others is impossible to begin with. What it means is you are free of nihilism as now that god is dead people have no source of these things, they're all going to be impacted by nihilism in some way and this will get more pronounced as society advances in this dead-god world. Unless of course a man could, in a manner of speaking, become his own god. Be able to fully affirm his own life and give it direction and meaning.

As Nietzsche said in TSZ, which you would know if you've read it.
>“Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman--a rope over an abyss. "
The abyss is nihilism. To go from man to Ubermensch is to overcome this problem and become something to us what we are to our pre-human ancestors.

Animals would fairly fit within your retarded misunderstanding of what an Ubermensch is.

>I didn't say I am. I said what you're describing isn't all that impressive and many people would fit that criteria
literally nobody does, are you seriously stupid enough to believe otherwhise? I hope for your sake you are just trying to troll me

>Being a self-sufficient source of morality and meaning does not mean you don't derive these things from other
either you are brain damaged or you do not understand the meaning of self-sufficient

>As Nietzsche said in TSZ, which you would know if you've read it.
>“Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman--a rope over an abyss. "
The abyss is nihilism. To go from man to Ubermensch is to overcome this problem and become something to us what we are to our pre-human ancestors.
yes I've read it, still none of that clashes with what I've said so far

>Animals would fairly fit within your retarded misunderstanding of what an Ubermensch is.
no they don't because they are not sentient, meaning they have no concept of morality

these are four separate levels of retardness in a single post. that's not an easy thing to pull off, congrats

This guy is right.
This guy is dumb.

You basically got your answer OP, but you should actually read the book.

nice samefagging, samefag

>literally nobody does, are you seriously stupid enough to believe otherwhise? I hope for your sake you are just trying to troll me
But they do, it's not as impressive as you seem to think. As said earlier even heavily autistic people are exactly like that by default.

You seem to have just dreamed up as an arbitrary benchmark for a superhuman feat without thinking about it very hard. Then retroactively dismiss any dubiousness that maybe there are people like that with "noooo, it's just too godlike" without actually explaining what's so incredible about it.

>either you are brain damaged or you do not understand the meaning of self-sufficient
Have you even read the Wikipedia article on Nietzsche?
Did you even read my entire paragraph?
"self-sufficient" in this context means without god not without other people. As I said you can't derive morality and meaning from other people anyway.
>yes I've read it, still none of that clashes with what I've said so far
It's not meant to attack your argument. It's meant to support my argument. You do realize constructively supporting your own argument with references to the source material is something non-brainlets do, right?

But despite that it does conflict with your silly-ass idea on one level, one of the points I raised following the quote. That animals would satisfy your criteria.
>no they don't because they are not sentient, meaning they have no concept of morality
Only your criteria made absolutely no reference to morality. Let us revisit it.
>the ubermensch is simply a man who is unshackled by the herd. Nietzche was a stout individualist and anti-collectivist, and what he basically "preached" was that men must find their true self, and become it, by not letting themselves be influenced by external pressures coming from society, religions, family, and such.
Animals do not have these societal frameworks, they are always 100% their true self by default because they operate on pure instinct.

Why is Nietzsche such a magnet to people that love to give hot takes on philosophers they've never read?

If you consider abos human then most of humanity because ubermensch.

Nope, it's just obvious to everyone that you're a dumbass.

i'll try to explain it to you, but I know in advance this will be wasted time since you appear to be a special kind of daft.

the quote of aristotle I used earlier, means that man cannot live without society. the quote from N "if you stare long enough into the abyss the abyss will stare back into you" simply states the principle that whenever there is observation between two systems, there is reciprocal influence. if a man lives in society, he is influenced by it in several ways, which are impossible to avoid, and psychology teaches us that. even N ironically was a product of a christian society, in the sense that his anti-christianism could never have been in a non-christian society.

also, if heavily autistic people were to fit my definition, that would not mean my definition itself to be wrong- i don't recall N saying "heavily autistic people are not ubermensch" in TSZ, nor in ecce homo, which unlike you I have both read AND understood.

moreover, what YOU consider to be the definition of ubermensch is much easier to live up to, By it I myself could be ubermann, since I do not care about god (and thus my moral system is not derived by it), and I am not a nihilist (thus I find meaning in my existance)

basically, you are just being more and more of a retard.

even if you didn't spend 10 seconds altering that in paint, the fact that you agree with the "other" guy just reinforces the notion that stupid people are very easy to come by

also if you want to revisit my definition, let me help you:
>the ubermensch is symply a MAN [...]

if you wish to apply it outside its stated dominion it loses any validity and even rocks would comply to it, but it seems you are too dumb to understand basic logic

Ubermensch is basically what you become when you see everything through postmodern lenses

do what you want.

1. That's not what that quote means. It means that when a person focuses on that which they hate they will become progressively more influenced by it, as their time spent thinking about something in opposition to it will come to warp their other views and perceptions and the more intensely they focus on it the more pronounced this effect will be. It's not saying " there is observation between two systems, there is reciprocal influence", that is retarded.
2. You don't seem to understand what being shackled to the herd is. It is not being influenced by anyone besides yourself in any way. It is suppressing your natural desires and sensibilities in the name of conformity. At no point does Nietzsche say "The Ubermensch will not have friends, family, relationships or participate in society". What Nietzsche rails against in his philosophy on the herd is insincerely buckling to a standard of mediocrity that groups tend to impose upon their members.

>In his heart every man knows quite well that, being unique, he will be in the world only once and that no imaginable chance will for a second time gather together into a unity so strangely variegated an assortment as he is: he knows it but he hides it like a bad conscience—why? From fear of his neighbor, who demands conventionality and cloaks himself with it. But what is it that constrains the individual to fear his neighbor, to think and act like a member of a herd, and to have no joy in himself? Modesty, perhaps, in a few rare cases. With the great majority it is indolence, inertia. ... Men are even lazier than they are timid, and fear most of all the inconveniences with which unconditional honesty and nakedness would burden them. Artists alone hate this sluggish promenading in borrowed fashions and appropriated opinions and they reveal everyone’s secret bad conscience, the law that every man is a unique miracle.

Nietzsche fundamentally states that every person already is unique, environmental influences or no. What makes "the herd" dangerous

>also, if heavily autistic people were to fit my definition, that would not mean my definition itself to be wrong
No, but it does mean that a significant amount of people do meet and have always met your criteria. Which is precisely why the point was raised, there is nothing super-human or godlike about it when heavily disabled people fit it with zero effort or thought on their part.

>By it I myself could be ubermann, since I do not care about god (and thus my moral system is not derived by it), and I am not a nihilist (thus I find meaning in my existance)
THIS NIGGA

Okay, this should be good, elaborate on your moral system.

>guy just reinforces the notion that stupid people are very easy to come by
I should know, I'm talking to one.

>the Ubermensch is a man
Ebin, simply ebin.

Also, here's a quick easy to read rundown of the concept. Clearly it's what you need.

ccrma.stanford.edu/~pj97/Nietzsche.htm

1. That's not what that quote means. It means that when a person focuses on that which they hate they will become progressively more influenced by it, as their time spent thinking about something in opposition to it will come to warp their other views and perceptions and the more intensely they focus on it the more pronounced this effect will be. It's not saying " there is observation between two systems, there is reciprocal influence", that is retarded
what you said is obviously derived from what I said(a person focusing on something that it hates = two systems interacting), so once again you are basically agreeing with me. also you are calling retarded a fundamental principle of quantum physics, not that I expected you to know or understand that.

>In his heart every man knows[...]
people are unique but hide that through and because of social norms (they let the herd shackle them), and thus they do not live up to become their own true self, but a distorted image of it, and N says that the overman will be he for whom that shall not be. which is exactly what I wrote here with "men must find their true self, and become it, by not letting themselves be influenced by external pressures coming from society, religions, family, and such" note societal norms qualifies as that pressures from society

>No, but it does mean that a significant amount of people do meet and have always met your criteria. Which is precisely why the point was raised, there is nothing super-human or godlike about it when heavily disabled people fit it with zero effort or thought on their part.
these people lack one of the fundamental parts of humanity (the ability for sociality), and they usually suffer greatly for it. in the case of the overman he should live happily despite being his true self in the face of society, so maybe what is godlike after all, is to be both autistic and happy

my moral system is my business, I have not the intention nor the will to explain it to you

>the ubermensch is a creature biologically different from a human and not a metaphor

>An overman as described by Zarathustra, the main character in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, is the one who is willing to risk all for the sake of enhancement of humanity. In contrary to the �last man� whose sole desire is his own comfort and is incapable of creating anything beyond oneself in any form. This should suggest that an overman is someone who can establish his own values as the world in which others live their lives, often unaware that they are not pregiven. This means an overman can affect and influence the lives of others. In other words, an overman has his own values, independent of others, which affects and dominates others� lives that may not have predetermined values but only herd instinct

this bullshit is hilarious. did you write it?

>is the one who is willing to risk all for the sake of enhancement of humanity
lolwut no

>This means an overman can affect and influence the lives of others. In other words, an overman has his own values, independent of others, which affects and dominates others
literally "the overman is the strong who dominates the weak" meme
lmao not once any of these two bullshit themes occur in TSZ. if you say the contrary I want the chapters of the book, I'll see for myself

You can't because the concept itself would be different for every individual ubermensch

>is the one who is willing to risk all for the sake of enhancement of humanity
by this JESUS is literally an uberman lmao

>so once again you are basically agreeing with me
This is something that we call backpeddling, you've realized you had something wrong and now you're retroactively pretending you meant something completely different to save face. This is common behaviour for brainlets.

Here is what you said.
>whenever there is observation between two systems, there is reciprocal influence. if a man lives in society, he is influenced by it in several ways
You were making the argument that the quote is about influence in general. When do things coexist they come to influence each other. Despite this being a massively general point that covers every kind of social influence imaginable (which is what you meant) you're now saying since this includes the dialectic between a person and the subject of their hatred I'm basically agreeing with you. This is the height of dishonesty.

If I say an aphorism means something extremely general and unspecific, then someone corrects me and explains it means something much more nuanced and precise they're not "basically agreeing with me". What I said would have been wrong on the count of it being much too broad, and subsequently any argument I'm going to ground in that statement is also going to be wrong.

> also you are calling retarded a fundamental principle of quantum physics
It's a fundamental principle of quantum physics that "if you stare long enough into the abyss the abyss will stare back into you" means " there is observation between two systems, there is reciprocal influence"? Amazing.

Also lol quantum physics references. It truly is brainlet bingo tonight.

> which is exactly what I wrote here
It's not though. Your entire point is that to be Ubermensch is to totally exorcize yourself of any external influence, in your own words
>if a man lives in society, he is influenced by it in several ways, which are impossible to avoid, and psychology teaches us that. even N ironically was a product of a christian society, in the sense that his anti-christianism could never have been in a non-christian society.
You're once again backpeddling to pretend this "influence" is only the pressure to conform. When you've already elaborated on your point enough for it to be obvious you were talking about any and all environmental influence.

Instead of backpeddling so furiously maybe you should just take the L.

>and they usually suffer greatly for it. in the case of the overman he should live happily despite being his true self in the face of society, so maybe what is godlike after all, is to be both autistic and happy
>autistic people can't be happy
>Ubermensch are happy at all times
Are you retarded?

>my moral system is my business, I have not >the ubermensch is a creature biologically different from a human and not a metaphor
Define "biologically different"
There was a time when the first creature we would call a human would be almost indistinguishable from the last of our ancestors we would consider not-human.

>lolwut no
Are you saying the Ubermensch doesn't advance humanity?
>literally "the overman is the strong who dominates the weak" meme
The Ubermensch's values don't influence the lives of others?
>by this JESUS is literally an uberman lmao
He's closer than most. Jesus is the great transvaluator.

Also I notice you have cited no Nietzsche excerpts in support of your interpretation and no secondary sources of analysis either.

I'm saying the OM doesnt necessarily want to do anything for the sake of enhanchment of humanity

his values don't necessarily influence the lives of others

jesus is as far as you can go from the OM, read TSZ chapter on compassion

it's not called beckpedalling, it's called desperately trying to make a dumb person understand something

my interpretation of the quote does includes what you said, and other things. this means that i consider what you said correct, but incomplete, because to me is evident that its validity is "broader", so to speak, than you implied

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

I never said that the influence i mentioned is only the pressure to conform., the statement of mine that you quoted does not imply nor mention exclusivity and it is obviously a mere example. once again, that is one of the many things that categorize as external influence. once again, it is you who are being dishonest or plain stupid by warping the meaning of my words to create flaws in my logic that are not there.

once (or should I say thrice?) again, you are being dishonest by trying to give my words a universality which I never intended nor implied anywhere in my sentence. I never stated anywhere that the OM should happy at all times, but merely meant that he ought to be happy in the context to which my statement was pertaining, which was the lack of sociality. it was clear that my statement meant that the OM should be happy about that, not always and at all times

N never once mentions biological evolution but uses the figure of the overman as something to aspire to. "I teach you the overman!" - zarathustra, TSU

also your constant namedropping of the word brainlet truly lets transpire your mechanism to compensate through projection

>for the sake of enhanchment of humanity
He doesn't have to want to. By virtue of the nature of the Ubermensch he's going to advance humanity in any case, as his very being is an advancement of man. Regardless of what he wills mankind is going to be enhanced because of it happening.
>his values don't necessarily influence the lives of others
It does though. The Ubermensch as a creative force and a transvaluator of values would inevitably ripple into non-Ubermenschen.

It's not necessarily a matter of conscious domination. It's a side-effect of being a creative and virtuous individual.

>jesus is as far as you can go from the OM,
Read The Antichrist. Nietzsche considered Jesus to be the total reverse of a Dionysian hero, but in being such a thing was still a worthy adversary. Do remember that Jesus is the guy who killed master morality and lived according to his new system of values until the day he died. In Nietzsche's words “In truth,there was only one christian and he died on the cross.”.

>my interpretation of the quote does includes what you said, and other things. this means that i consider what you said correct
I know, that's precisely why I'm saying your interpretation is wrong. It is too broad when the actual meaning of the aphorism is much more precise and nuanced than you seem to think.

>I never said that the influence i mentioned is only the pressure to conform
I know you didn't. In fact I'm saying you said the exact opposite, that herd-mentality extends to every possible kind of external influence. I'm the one saying it is only the pressure to conform. I see reading comprehension is not your strong-suit.

>but merely meant that he ought to be happy in the context to which my statement was pertaining, which was the lack of sociality.
Okay, but do you not see that you've just undermined your point? This is something I've noticed you doing quite a lot, getting caught up in defending the small points while you forget all about your earlier arguments. You just keep digging a bigger and bigger hole for yourself.

If Ubermensch are not happy at all times, and Autistic people are happy some of the time, why aren't they Ubermensch? Because for a great deal, especially in the more extreme cases I'm talking about, they're quite satisfied in their lack of socialization. It is not something they necessarily need in the way a normal person would.

>N never once mentions biological evolution
He does. In fact in the first part of TSZ where the Ubermensch is mentioned he heavily references Darwinian evolution.
literaturepage.com/read/thusspakezarathustra-16.html
And do remember this was written in the wake of The Origin of Species and all the debate that followed. It is deliberately evocative of biological evolution.

>also your constant namedropping of the word brainlet truly lets transpire your mechanism to compensate through projection
Brainlet's busting out the thesaurus.

The Ubermensch is a free spirit like Christ and Buddha, but unlike them, he favors power above all and the great life of the warrior. He isn't an uncivilized inbred like the Muslims either though; they are not powerful, they are just fools.

the ubermensch is a good person who is good to other people. nietzsche considered jesus to be an ubermensch
here is a list of people nietzsche considered ubermensches:

hitler
ghandi
buddha
steve jobs
george bush
jesus christ
mary christ
moohammad

i hope this answers ur kwestyion user

>Apollonian and Dionysian
Could anybody explain this one to me? And if possible could anybody explain what Evola meant by this too? I've read both but I never really understood this whole concept when both of them brought it up.

Apollonian and Dionysian is basically the conflict between these two seemingly antagonistic realms of life, and in Nietzsche's case hopefully the eventually synthesis. Apollonian is things like reason, order, logic and restraint. Dionysian is things like passion, instinct, chaos, feeling and indulgence. In Nietzsche's commentaries on Greek tragedy he made the case that what made them so brilliant is their fusion of these two concepts in a way that hasn't been achieved since.

I haven't read Evola so I'm not sure if he meant something different by it.

To describe the Übermensch is impossible, for he is not properly human. To the overman man is nothing but a bridge, which is like saying that to man the ape is nothing but a bridge too. This is the degree of difference between the 2 "stages" that Nietzsche envisioned.
It's true, the Übermensch is unshackled by the values of men, but this does not happen due to some sort of enlightment: this is how he is programmed, this is where his istincts drive him.
From all of this follows that for us humans this concept is just an ideal that we are trying to approximate (Nietzsche himself mentions many great men, the greates according to him was Goethe), but due to our inherent biology this possibility is fully precluded to us.

Humanity as a whole has the duty to survive and to create the conditions necessary for such a creature to exist.

Evola's claim is that Nietzsche fundamentally misunderstood the meaning of Apollonian and Dionysian because he was reading them through the lens of nihilism, but I'd have to go back and read it with a better understanding to actually get what his criticism was.