Isn't it hypocritical how Nietzsche rallied against "lower men" and glorified the Ubermensch when he himself was sickly...

just stop reading philosophy, you're not smart enough to even understand one of the most basic philosophers

Wow, you don't even have an argument, I guess that means I'm right

The slave is not a solitary and syphilis infected man, but a man of ressentiment and ban conscience; a man constituted of reactive forces.

you sure showed him by demonstrating your own complete lack of knowledge

keep telling yourself that. just remember that every stupid teenager who reads Nietzsche has had the same thoughts that you did. Your stupidity isn't even original stupidity.

>Wow, you don't even have an argument

correct

>I guess that means I'm right

How the fuck does the guy you're arguing not having an argument magically make you right?

yes. All philosophy is just coping mechanism for being lonely. This is also why most philosophers are manlets

Still no arguments.

>sickly, lonely, and mentally ill?

None of these prevent someone from being an Ubermensch

But doesn't Nietzsche praise vitality and strength as the only measure of men and men's wills? Obviously the Ubermensch is mostly an intellectual entity, but Nietzsche suffered from a mental breakdown and was unable to form lasting relationships. Was he, like he says of Socrates, just creating a new value system for people like him?

This is my argument.
>Your opponent lacking an argument does not make you correct.

Example:
"Cats are dogs."
"You're a fucking retard."
"Not an argument, I must be right."

>what is sarcasm
Autism

...

It was obviously sarcasm, autismo
>the internet is serious business

>It was obviously sarcasm, autismo

Or maybe you're just retarded, retard.

The overman is someone who's conquered the reactive (bad conscience, ressentiment) and where the negative have given way to the affirmative.

You can be as sickly and as weak physically as you want and still be ubermensch as long as you seek and conquer struggle

>nietzsche is basic

He isn't creating a value system at all.

Why does it matter? Once he penned his ideas they floated away, out of his control. They have nothing to do with him anymore.

OP is wrong because he entire stance was about enduring struggle and even embracing it to gain insight and strength then apply that insight to delete values that don't work for you that society has influenced you to endorse and create your own values.

However, op no one gave you a real answer so don't listen to the others just slamming you with no effort or understanding.

By "Ubermensch" Nietzsche refers to a system of morality in regards to the self. He wasn't a eugenicist.

Are you going to post this every time it 404s?

He couldn't be a man so he wrote about his fantasy being a man.

You are wrong in that you think that for some reason being physically weak has anything to do with anything with his philosophy. Claiming his nature that tends towards solitude goes against his philosophy is so wrong I'm baffled as to how you can even believe that. His mental illness was something that developed late and has no bearing on the seminal works of his philosophy nor is there anything hypocritical in his philosophy for someone to be subject to the same physical laws that govern our mental properties. Your post shows you don't know what Nietzsche means when he talks of lower men and ubermensch if you think those are criticisms of him.

>inherent inferiority?
>Becomes a professor at an extremely young age
>In spite of physical conditions that would ruin even the will of strong men he channeled enough energy to create a body of work that put him as one of the most important philosophers of the last hundred years

So you are wrong about everything you said.

answer: no, it would categorically not make him a hypocrite

reason: because, to simplify, the notion of the will-to-power that nietzsche develops would enable the creation of his own philosophy AS A RESPONSE TO his physical inferiority to be an expression and hence fulfillment of that very philosophy. or: much like socrates, who was too weak to compete with ancient and brutish ubermensch and who corrupted athenian culture--but also made mankind "deep" in so doing--well, given what you wrote, nietzsche's maneuver would be similar. so, let's say that niezsche is physically weak--that he can create a philosophy that competes with physical strength in the stead of actual physical strength would be testament to create illusions in the world and rule over final men/underlings.
do you see how physical prowess does not prevent one from becoming an ubermensch--but may in fact help determine the dialectical process that produces ubermenschen? hence why Christ may be an ubermensh, etc.

in short: its about one's capacity to create myths, not one's capacity to lift dumbbells, that determines one's status as an ubermensch, you stupid fucking philistine.

this seems to be the Nietzsche thread, can someone post the reading order? I'm buying the Iliad and the Odyssey tomorrow so I might as well pick up some neetch as well

>capacity to create myths
that seems way off

You're a good poster. Why are you a tripfag?

Well, 'capacity to create myths' and capacity to express that vision onto the world (philosophers of the future -> Will to Power). And how many people have read and been influenced by Nietzsche, again?

I'm not disputing this but the ubermensch is more than that. Nietzsche had powerful ideas but he wasn't uber

>Goethe—…a grand attempt to overcome the eighteenth century through a return to nature, through a going-up to the naturalness of the Renaissance, a kind of self-overcoming on the part of that century…He did not sever himself from life, he placed himself within it…and took as much as possible upon himself, above himself, within himself. What he aspired to was totality; he strove against the separation of reason, sensibility, emotion, will…; he disciplined himself to a whole, he created himself… Goethe conceived of a strong, highly cultured human being who, keeping himself in check and having reverence for himself, dares to allow himself the whole compass and wealth of naturalness, who is strong enough for this freedom; a man of tolerance, not out of weakness but out of strength, because he knows how to employ to his advantage what would destroy an average nature; a man to whom nothing is forbidden, except it be weakness, whether that weakness be called vice or virtue… A spirit thus emancipated stands in the middle of the universe with a joyful and trusting fatalism, in the faith that only what is separate and individual may be rejected, that in the totality everything is redeemed and affirmed—he no longer denies… But such a faith is the highest of all possible faiths: I have baptised it with the name Dionysus.

I think N. falls under a similar description, but I do agree there is room for reasonable contention. And yes, yes, he also says things like the ubermensch was of an advanced mindset far in the future, that we wouldn't even recognize them as human, etc. and that's a valid point too, but any such definition that includes N.'s best examples (Borgia, Goethe, Napoleon, Beethoven) ought to include him as well.

Nietzsche himself said that a philosophy is the unconscious confession of a philosopher.

So yes, you're probably right OP, but so what?

Perhaps he identified his own weaknesses and other people like him and tried to figure out how to correct them.

Which is miles ahead of most people, who just psychologically repress their own weaknesses and never ever bring them up.

This pretty much

every philosophy is a coping mechanism, ever since plato

>implying
all the aryan bullshit was added in after he died by his sister's husband

So I'm glad that people started making actual posts with actual points, but like, what the fuck? The first 30 posts of this thread were just people calling OP retarded without giving any explanation. There's no reason to be such cunts when OP was asking an honest question

ubermensch has a connotation of sherpa/higher climber. Think Tenzig Norgay and Edmund Hillary. This is why "downgoing" to help those lower on the slopes is praised in his philosophy too and why tightrope walking plays such a large metaphorical part.

double cringe

you'll get wrinkles anonkun!

>he was a "lower man" because he was sickly, lonely and mentally ill (wich, by the way, is not relevant for most of his works since he was sane until 1889)

What have you read by Nietzsche? N. talks extensively about his poor health, finding in his sickness the true source of his philosophical career.
In Ecce Homo he talks about this in the second chapter, I think. He states that through that terrible experience he managed to discover what "being healthy" truly meant. He talks about how he gamed every single phisiological aspect he managed to find, going from the bed to being able to walk extremely long distances just fpr the sake of it. If you've read his letters you'll know that everything single word he wrote was written when walking in nature. You'll also discover that he was lonely, but not antisocial.
He wasn't a weirdo, and all the external accounts we have about him individuate Nietzsche as a calm, affable, well mannered man. He was a great conversationalist (he directly inspired Wagner's best works in his mid 20s in a time where Wagner was the most famous and revered intllectual in Europe) and a great entertainer (especially with women).

He overcome his sickness, and chose loneliness not because it was his only option, but because it was the best way to produce the philosophy he ended up producing. I'd say it was worth it.

Regardless, associating the idea of Ubermensch with the idea of a strong, healthy chad male is at best a misinterpretation, at worst a good interpretation of his Nazi-vetted works.
those are all ideals that Noetzsche would have supported, since they're all life-affirming, but he literally never said that they were prerequisites.

For the people who posted pictures of Nazi soldiers: Nietzsche had a genuine hatred for everything that was German.

Nietzsche hated germans but would he have hated hitler's germans? As far as I can tell the nazis were a willful departure from what he hated

Considering that Nietzsche hated anti-semitism more than anything, the Nazis were by no means a "willful departure from what he hated."

On the contrary, they embraced what he hated.

Natsoc was a populist, racist, anti-semitical, highly hierarchical, extremely nationalistic party. If you think that Nietzsche would have approved it I can only suggest you to reread everything you've read by him.

So the racist, machismo filled, saber rattling Nationalists of his time he hated but the racist, machismo filled, saber rattling Nationalists of the time of the Nazis are different? If anything the Nazis took what he disliked about Germany and made a caricature of it.

>highly hierarchical

This is the only part he wouldn't have minded.

In one piece of correspondence, one of Nietzsche's friends refers to him as a "radical aristocrat." Nietzsche, in turn, takes that as a compliment.

He certainly believed in the stratification of society.

I only know of Nietzsche from shitposts on Veeky Forums :^)

Nietzsche shitposts on Veeky Forums are pretty well informed, by shitpost standards.

Nietzsche was kinda racist, but he would have certainly disapproved of their antisemitism.

Yet I'm sure that it would have disagreed with the hierarchies established by the Nazi party: from his point of view every position of power would have been held by magnifications of the people he hated the most for his entire life.
There's no way Noetzsche could have had any sprt of sympathy for Hitler and his goons, especially considering the rethoric and policies they adopted.

Nietzsche is clearly an elitist, but only on a intellectual sense, much like Plato.

I was referring to his idea of the last man, which doesn't fit the nazis at all. To my mind they weren't like the pre war germans at all, they were something new and a rejection of nihilism and traditional religion

>Nietzsche had a genuine hatred for everything that was German.
Can you expand it? I'm really curious.

Eh, he wasn't really racist, he usually just criticized nations as a whole (always European).

So german people sucks, itlian people can't write music and french people are the best writers in history. Nothing hardcore, that could leg to colonialism, segregation or genocide. It's closer to intellectually snobbery than actual racism.

The racism proposed by the Natsoc party would have horrified him.

>To my mind they weren't like the pre war germans at all,
they were the personification of his problems with the germans, right down to thinking jews were a threat to natural germans being a sign of insecurity.

>Nietzsche is clearly an elitist, but only on a intellectual sense, much like Plato.

I'm not sure I agree. In the Will to Power and elsewhere, he expresses two clear beliefs:

1) You can't divorce psychology/philosophy from physiognomy. This is part of the reason why he holds the Greeks/Romans in such high esteem, being so physically proficient.

2) Thought (philosophy/etc) demands action.

cnqzu.com/library/Philosophy/Ecce Homo.pdf

Read from lage 22 to page 39. It's mostly biographical, it should be easy enough to read.
Here he summarize his opinion on Wagner and German culture.

See

Philosophical speaking no.

Psychologically speaking, probably.

Based on your information I'm sure you've already read it, but you should check out Stefan Zweig's "The Struggle with the Daemon?" It's a fantastic examination of the psyches of Nietzsche, Holderlin, and Kleist---a deep, poetic, free-form penetration into their souls and life-stories.

He would, but not nearly as much as modern academia or watered-down interpreters would have you believe (see: , N. actually loved the State [with reservations and as a necessary evil], hierarchies [a large problem he'd have with NatSoc would be its populist, mass-empowering nature]).

He was a big guy.

>physical strength makes you a higher man
Thats some untermensch thinking you got there.
Anyway, don't worry so much about Nietzsche. He may not have been a hypocrite, but he was still a pseud

He was copping with adversity 100% of the times. He was always wearing leg weights.

Some people (and particular cultures) may consider questions a sign of disrespect or even a challenge to authority.. but philosophers often take the question as impetus for investigation and Nietzsche is an example of one who relentlessly questioned himself. This could be part of the source of his discomfort but also his method of intellectual exploration via autobiographical interrogation.