Was Adolf Hitler an 'Overman' or Ubermensch Veeky Forums?

Was Adolf Hitler an 'Overman' or Ubermensch Veeky Forums?

>Inb4 I get banned by the mods or spam saying "back to /pol/".
Seriously though, legitimate question: Was he or not?

I mean he was one of (if not thee) best orators in history.
He was extremely well read.
He was battle-hardened.
He was insanely passionate to the point of obvious madness.
The list goes on and on... He certainly fits description.

So yeah, was he Ubermensch? Why, or why not?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche#Citizenship.2C_nationality.2C_ethnicity
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

And do you think history will eventually be kind to him?

go learn what the definition of the overman is

...

Yes but I mean, If the world was populated by people of Hitler's character (minus the genocidal bit or w.e) then surely that would be a better world no?

I mean, Nazi or not, genocide or not, war or not...the guy came from the absolute lowest of the low and rose to the apex of mankind through nothing but will, determination and passion.
I mean when I read Thus Spake Zarathustra it reminded me of him.

No, this is a question about Nietzsche's concept of the Overman. It's not necessarily focusing on the history.

He was an autistic manlet.

But that doesn't answer the question.

He was clearly an "artist", perhaps the ultimate artist?

Was he a value-creator or did he exploit Germany's post-WWI low self-esteem in the proper way to gain political power?

Can't we judge the fact that his position was fundamentally moral? This begs the question if an Ubermensch should fund its will into morals or construct them as a posterior product.

He wasn't sane nor righteous enough to be Nietzsche's ubermensch but he would be one of Raskolnikov's Great Men.

Besides serving as a board for LARPers and heritage obsessed /pol/fags, Veeky Forums is for philosophy threads too

He may have exploited in the beginning, but that is necessary in politics anyway.His vision required him to do so, and if you ignore the whole war and the way it all played out, then yes, he absolutely created value.
Even in say a couple of hundred years, the 'spin' of history might view him from a different perspective anyway.

I don't know if he was moral, but he undeniably believed in his vision to the point of death, and not just the death of him. Whenever I see the quote: "One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star.", I think immediately of Hitler, and I'm no Nazi supporter.
And the same for:
>''My brother, do you know the word "contempt" yet? And the agony of your justice—being just to those who despise you? You force many to relearn about you; they charge it bitterly against you. You came close to them and yet passed by; that they will never forgive. You pass over and beyond them: but the higher you ascend, the smaller you appear to the eye of envy. But most of all they hate those who fly.''
>“And life confided the secret to me: behold, it said, I am that which must always overcome itself.”
>“To have and to want to have more – growth, in one word – that is life itself.”
>“That something is a hundred times more important than the question of whether we feel well or not: basic instinct of all strong natures…In sum, that we have a goal for which one does not hesitate…to risk every danger, to take upon oneself whatever is bad and worst: the great passion.”

What made him not sane or righteous though? He believed he was, as did his peers and probably the majority of his country.

Also, seeIs being "sane" a requirement? What does that even mean?

Smarter folks browse Veeky Forums

He undoubtedly had a beautiful soul. Nietzsche would have loved him.

Nietzsche considered himself a Pole and Slav and would definitely not have been on good terms with a German nationalist.

I think his sheer force of will and artistry transcended just being a "German nationalist", though. Nietzsche probably would have loved to analyse him, at least.

Stupid poast

...

He absolutely was. And the fact that you can't publicly say it is proof enough.

Nietzsche hated Germans and German nationalists.

[citation needed]

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche#Citizenship.2C_nationality.2C_ethnicity

>ietzsche believed that his ancestors were Polish,[92] at least toward the end of his life. Nietzsche wrote in 1888, "My ancestors were Polish noblemen (Nietzky); the type seems to have been well preserved despite three generations of German mothers."[93] At one point Nietzsche becomes even more adamant about his Polish identity. "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood."[94] On yet another occasion Nietzsche stated "Germany is a great nation only because its people have so much Polish blood in their veins [...] I am proud of my Polish descent."[95] Nietzsche believed his name might have been Germanized, in one letter claiming, "I was taught to ascribe the origin of my blood and name to Polish noblemen who were called Niëtzky and left their home and nobleness about a hundred years ago, finally yielding to unbearable suppression: they were Protestants."[96]

>Wikipedia as source on such a controversial subject

I don't think so idiot.

The Wikipedia article has links and sources.

ITT: brainlets who don't understand what the ubermensch is

The ubermensch is not a simple Machiavellian, rather it is someone who creates new values out of sheer force of will, not someone who merely imposes their will unto others. Imposing one's will on others in the context of a liberal democracy (Weimar) results in one adopting the values of the herd in order to appeal to the majority. Socialism, nationalism, biological racism, anti-semitism, etc. were popular undercurrents in German society in at the time. Hitler pragmatically took advantage of that and turned them up to 11. And if Nazism arose as a reaction to Versailles, then it's difficult to see how this isn't a case of ressentiment. Politically and militarily defeated, they had to justify themselves as nevertheless good and the Other as evil from a position of weakness in a manner reminiscent of herd morality.

It's Himmler (or rather, the idea of Himmler as historically understood) who is closer to the ideal of the ubermensch.

How can someone create values without imposing them to others in some way?

Those numbers that show up at seemingly random points in the text are actually sources, you can go to the page and check them yourself. It's pretty neat.

Hitler was beyond Machiavellian, though. How can you not concede that? It's debatable whether or not he created his own values (I would say he did), but he certainly imposed his will on others, and extremely effectively. He wouldn't have been able to get into politics had he not. He wouldn't have been Hitler had he not. In fact, he wouldn't have been able to do much at all, would he?

The history writes it off as "just took advantage of the undercurrent" but I honestly believe there was more to it than that. Watch a Hitler speech. The guy looked like he was on the verge of tears and madness, yet still came across as powerful and ready.

Yeah, no shit, retard. But since it's such a controversial topic, they would require hours of scrutiny, and not only that but people are still arguing over them to this very day. It wouldn't be worthwhile for this thread, I don't think.

>was hitler a super man or a super men

You get what I was trying to say, asshole. Worthless post that doesn't contribute to the discussion!

God damn Roman Salute!

Think of it like a parent who possess courage. He imposes it (through the stick or the carrot) on his child. But if the child abandons his courage because his father has passed away, then the father will have failed in passing his values on and those values will die out. Values have to imposed by more than force, although this force of will is often times necessary (and a virtue in itself).

Hitler wouldn't have gone as far as he did if he didn't have much popular support. Of course, you can have a positive feedback loop where the state disseminates what to think which influences the public which in turn gives the state ideas on what levers to more effectively pull, but the NSDAP did not have this infrastructure when they were starting out. Yes, they did have their street brawlers but this is only evidence of a willingness to use physical force not the imposition of any value (aside from what the people already believed, or rather, their id believed but were unwilling to express until someone took up the role). As for the emotional impact of his speeches, i'm not sure what this proves other than a talent for sophistry. You see this much the same way with modern day politicians who are telegenic. We've just become so ADHD riddled past politicians are better by comparison.

>not the imposition of any value (aside from what the people already believed,
I disagree.
Giving the whole nation purpose isn't value? Or at least uniting them? Giving them hope? Allowing them to dream, etc? Obviously, his "vision" was cut short, so we didn't get to see the ending, but I think he intended to elevate the German people to the point where they could create their own value themselves. I mean he pretty much said so in his speeches... they all sound pretty "Ubermensch" to me.
This would of course mean Hitler would have had to give up his position eventually, and therefore his power over the people, but I believe he was passionate enough about his vision that he would have done it. As we know, he was an artist at heart... and he was certainly willing to risk it.

Effective bureaucratic or political organization should be distinct from creating a system of values that people aim to follow. Did Steve Jobs create a new set of values? No, but he created innovative products. He took advantage of the existing entrepreneurial culture in Silicon Valley to achieve that. There's a reason Nietzsche chose as his mouthpiece a prophet figure who expected to be misunderstood by the people.

Social media and technology have revealed how inept and aggressively stupid the people in power tend to be. It's no coincidence that one can ask this question unironically only about people who lived at least ~75 years ago. Hitler (and other historical figures) were at least twice as inept as we believe them to be.