View Poll Results: Is the concept of ubermensch...

Voters
9. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, only to the Germanic Peoples

    2 22.22%
  • Yes, but with occasional exceptions

    0 0%
  • No, it is appliable to all

    6 66.67%
  • No, it's a bunch of rubbish

    1 11.11%
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 64

Thread: Your Opinions on Nietzsche's Overman (Übermensch)

  1. #41
    Senior Member EarthSoul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009 @ 03:06 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Nordid-Atlantid+Dalofaelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    Location
    kühler Norden
    Gender
    Family
    Having a longtime compani
    Religion
    towards the übermensch
    Posts
    24
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    AW: The Concept of Übermensch

    Don't know if I understood you correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody
    True; but doesn't it strike you as something that only a German could really come up with? (...) And can you really imagine a French, English, Spanish, or Italian philosopher [pre-Zarathustra] coming up with the Uber-mensch?
    Do you mean it's not a random event that a German (Nietzsche) came up with such an idea? I think this doesn't fit to the topic. The question is if a Germanic can became an Übermensch and not if a only a Germanic can create such an idea.


    Do not Germans sing Germany "Uber" all?
    In "ecce homo" Nietzsche dissociates with "Deutschland über alles" and describes it as a wasted idea. (Not sure, I have to read it again)
    AND I think "Übermensch" can't be seen as a human who only rules other humans (like the "Deutschland über Alles" idea. "Über" is more a symbol maybe for a higher spirital-evolution.

    And can you really imagine a French, English, Spanish, or Italian philosopher [pre-Zarathustra] coming up with the Uber-mensch?
    It's not the question if a philosopher comes up with this idea, but if a non-Germanic (btw isn't England germanic too?) can became an Übermensch, and as I said... yes they can! As Nietzsche says in Antichrist and Zarathustra the Übermensch was often there before! Jesus was an Übermensch too! (even if he was a really stupid [or better the most stupid] one...) Was Jesus germanic?


    Tell me if I understood you completely wrong.

  2. #42
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Re: AW: The Concept of Übermensch

    Quote Originally Posted by EarthSoul
    Do you mean it's not a random event that a German (Nietzsche) came up with such an idea? I think this doesn't fit to the topic. The question is if a Germanic can became an Übermensch and not if a only a Germanic can create such an idea.
    I was responding to the reasons given by some in thread for rejecting the Ubermensch as a German idea, while wholly accepting that some non-Germanics can be considered Ubermenschen.
    It was a development of that train of thought.

    In "ecce homo" Nietzsche dissociates with "Deutschland über alles" and describes it as a wasted idea. (Not sure, I have to read it again)
    You are right; but my point was/is that Nietzsche, for all his avowed criticism of things Germanic, was a Teutonicist despite himself.
    This is why I think that the reason given [i.e., that Nietzsche himself distanced the Ubermensch concept from Germanicism] is not such a good one unless one takes into account this repressed Teutonicism in Nietzsche's work.

    As Jung said, Nietzsche may as well have called his 'Zarathustra' Wotan, as that would have been closer to its flavour.
    But then Nietzsche's break with Wagner meant that he sublimated his Germanicism to an extent.

    From here, I take the position that the Ubermensch is a starkly Germanic concept.
    Of course, it can be applied to some non-Germans, but even then we might say that such figures have Germanic traits and aspire to Germanicism.

    AND I think "Übermensch" can't be seen as a human who only rules other humans (like the "Deutschland über Alles" idea. "Über" is more a symbol maybe for a higher spirital-evolution.
    Sure; ultimately it is about exceeding and going beyond the 'Human'.

    However, I maintain that this is a Germanic [Faustian] concept, and it is no accident that Nietzsche played on the various nuances of the pre-fix which cannot be satisfactorily translated into English [that alone should suggest that the concept is more German than it is English].

    It's not the question if a philosopher comes up with this idea, but if a non-Germanic (btw isn't England germanic too?) can became an Übermensch, and as I said... yes they can! As Nietzsche says in Antichrist and Zarathustra the Übermensch was often there before! Jesus was an Übermensch too! (even if he was a really stupid [or better the most stupid] one...) Was Jesus germanic?
    I think Nietzsche said that, 'had Jesus lived longer, he might have become Noble'. This is not tantamount to describing Jesus as an Ubermensch. Indeed, Nietzsche said that if you wanted to get a truer picture of the Ubermensch, then look at someone like Cesar Borgia!

    England is not wholly Germanic in my view, and has immersed itself for too long in the sentimental and hypocritical morality which it derived from Christianity. This is why the nearest the English come to an Ubermensch is in a moralistic monster like Oliver Cromwell.

    Ultimately, the Ubermensch must be able to encompass and personify Master Morality.

    So I don't disagree that a non-Germanic can be an Ubermensch - it would be silly to say otherwise.
    However, I do not think that this implies that the concept is not, therefore, a Germanic one; on the contrary, it most certainly is.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  3. #43
    Senior Member Oskorei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, December 14th, 2008 @ 05:15 PM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Subrace
    Tydal/Litorid/Nordid
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Location
    Gothenburrah
    Gender
    Politics
    Identitär
    Religion
    Indo-europeisk Traditionalist
    Posts
    2,172
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Julius Evola on Nietzsche

    We can now return to the problem that really interests us. In all the critical situations treated up to now, their predominant trait is that of being the objects, indeed the victims, of the destructive processes set in motion: processes which are simply suffered by current humanity. This holds good both for those who have adapted to a life based on nothing and lacking any true direction, helping themselves with a system of anesthetics and surrogates, and eventually resorting to the surviving forms of a secure bourgeois existence, and for those who feel the existential crisis of modern man in all of their being, and are consequently driven towards the kind of revolts or risky existence that were mentioned above.
    This applies, therefore, to the vast majority of our contemporaries. In contrast, there is a different and much smaller category of modern men who, instead of submitting to the nihilist processes, seek to accept them actively. In particualr, there are those who not only admit that the processes of dissolution are irreversible and that there is no going back, but who would not want to follow that path even if it existed. They willingly accept their condition of being without support or roots. Then the problem arises of how far the negative can be transformed into something positive.
    To someone who has the necessary character to assume such an attitude, the possibility opens of a new interpretation of the adventure of mankind wanting to be free, and of the crisis that is the consequence of this adventure. Thus arises the idea of a trial, and of destruction that are simply the consequence of not being equal to it, or as one might say, not being equal to one’s own action. Those who are interested may recall the ancient myths concerning an audacious sacrilege in which it is not the sacrilege itself that brings about the ruin of some symbolic personage, but lack of the necessary dignity or strength to accomplish an act that frees one from the divine bonds.
    The special human type who concerns us here and who partialy fits the category in question may adopt the same point of view. As we recall, his differentiated character consists in facing the problems of modern man without being a “modern man” himself; he belongs to a different world and preserves within himself a different existential dimension. Unlike the others, his problem is not the dramatic search for a basis (in principle, he already possesses one), but that of his own expression and confirmation in the modern epoch, in his life here and now.
    With this human type in mind, let us examine the theme of “positive nihilism”, or, if one prefers, the transition to the postnihilist stage. Since it is better to do so from a standpoint inside the modern world, rather than outside it, we can take as a provisional basis some of Nietzsche’s fundamental ideas, to test their solidity. We may find, in fact, that the more recent exponents of modern thought have gone little further than Nietzsche in their search for a new meaning of life, despite all that is inconsistent and negative in his philosophy.
    Nietzsche considered himself “the first perfect nihilist in Europe, because he has already overcome nihilism, having lived it in his soul - having it behind himself, beneath himself, outisde himself.” Having seen that “nihilism is the final, logical conclusion of our great values and ideals”, and having asserted that “we must pass through this nihilism in order to grasp the true nature of the ‘values’ of the past,” he nevertheless considered nihilism as “a pathological, transitional stage”, and proclaimed the “countermovement” that was destined to supplant it, without giving up the ground already won.
    Nietzsche showed that the point at which one realizes that “God is dead”, that the who,e world of “spirit”, of good and evil, is only an illusion, and that the only true world is that which was negated or rejected in the name of the former, is the crux of a decisive test. “The weak shatter, the strong destroy what does not shatter them, while those stronger still go beyond the values that once served them”. Nietzsche calls this the “tragic phase” of nihilism, which leads to a reversal of perspectives; nihilism at this point appears as a sign of strength, signifying “that the power to create, to will, has developed far enough that one has no further need for this general interpretation (of existence), of this introduction of a meaning (into it)”. “It is a measure of one’s strength of will to know how far one can do without a meaning to things, how far one can bear to live in a meaningless world: for then one will organize part of it”. Nietzsche calls this positive pessimism, or “the pessimism of strength”, and makes it the promise of a higher ethic. “If at first man needed a god, now he is thrilled with a universal, godless disorder, with a world of chance, where the fearful, the ambigious, and the seductive are part of his very existence”. In this world once again made “pure” and uniquely itself he stands erect, “conqueror of God and of nothingness”. The problem of the meaning of life is thus resolved with the affirmation that life is and can be a value in itself.
    This brings us to the precise point made above. The significance of all the crises of recent times can be summarized as follows: a man wanted to be free, for whom a life of freedom could spell only ruin. To say “God is dead” is only an emotional way of stating the basic fact of the epoch. But Nietzsche himself remarks that having “killed God, wasn’t that perhaps too grand of us? Shouldn’t be become gods in order to be worthy of it?” After recognizing that “nothing exists, all is permitted”, and the “freedom of the spirit”, the inevitable consequence is the challenge: “Now prove the nobility of your nature”.
    A famous passage of Zarathustra gives the most pregnant formulation to the essence of the crisis. “You call yourself free? Let me hear your ruling thoughts, and not that you have escaped bondage. Are you one who deserved to escape from it? There are many who threw away their only worth when they threw away their servitude. Free from what? Why should Zarathustra care? Your eyes should answer plainly: free for what?” And Zarathustra warns that it will be terrible to be alone, without any laws from above oneself, alone with one’s own freedom in a desert place and an icy air, judge and avenger of one’s own law. For him who only acquires any worth by serving, for him who had in his bonds not a cause of paralysis but a support, solitude appears as a curse; he looses courage and his initial pride deflates. These are the sentiments, continues Zarathustra, that then assail the free man, and that will not fail to kill him if he does not kill them first. In precise terms, and from a higher point of view, this is the essential ground of modern man’s unhappiness.
    Dostoyevski points out the same tjing in analogous fashion: it is Kirilov’s doctrine. The framework is identical: “Man only invented God so that he could live without killing himself. And this is the history of mankind from its origins up to the present day”, says Kirilov. The implication is plain: it is a necessity for man to have a center, a basic value. When he did not find it within himself, he placed it outside himself, projecting it onto God, whom he supposed to exist, certainly, but incanated in an “other”, and faith in this other provisionally solved the existential problem. Naturally this is not really, as Kirilov says, the whole meaning of the history of mankind; it is only that of the devotional phase of a theistic religion, a phase that already represents a disintegration of the world of Tradition and precedes the critical point of metaphysical breakdown of which I have spoken. The eyes of the “free man” Kirilov are open: “I don’t want to believe. I know that God doesn’t exist, and can’t exist.” The consequence is therefore “If God does not exist, I am God… To recognize that there is no God and not to recognize at the same time that one has become God is an absurdity and an incongruity, because otherwise one would not fail to kill oneself.” One can dispense with the suicide that is an obsession of Kirilov’s lucid folly, and speak simply of breakdown, disintegration, becoming lost in meaninglessness. In the face of this situation, terror and anguish arise: “He’s like a wretch who has received a legacy but takes fright and won’t set his hand to it, because he doesn’t think himself worthy of it.” We should not take seriously the act with which Kirilov thinks he can destroy his terror in the face of the divine legacy that he should accept, demonstrating at the same time “his divinity”. And we can set aside all this emphatic talk of God and being God, for the real problem posed here is one of values, and of “being free for what?”
    Nothing better characterizes failure in the crucial test, the negative result of the nihilistic experience, than the sentiment expressed by Sartre in these words: “We are condemned to be free.” Man takes absolute freedom for himself, but he can only feel this freedom as a condemnation. Metaphysical anguish is its counterpart. Later we shall examine the specific themes of existentialism. For now, we shall see what can be retained of Nietzsche’s views, not as a nihilist but as one who thought that he had left nihilism behind him, and thus created the premises for a higher existence and a new state of health.
    Once the idols have fallen, good and evil have been surpassed, along with all the surrogates of the old God, and the mist has lifted from one’s eyes, nothing is left to Nietzsche but “this world”, life, the body; he remains “faithful to the earth”. Thereupon, as we know, the theme of the superman appears. “God is dead, now we want the superman to come.” The superman will be the meaning of the earth, the justification of existence. Man is “a bridge, not a goal”, “a rope streteched between the brute and the superman, a rope stretched above an abyss”. This is not the place for a deep analysis of the manifold and divergent themes that crystallize in Nietzsche’s work around this central motif. The essential can be spelled out as follows.
    The negative, destructive phase of Nietzsche’s thought ends with the affirmation of immanence: all transcendent values, systems of ends and of higher truths, are interpreted as functions of life. In its turn, the essence of life - and more generally of nature - is the will to power. The superman is also defined as a function of the will to power and domination. One can see from this that Nietzsche’s nihilism stops halfway. It sets up a new table of values, including a good and an evil. It presents a new ideal with dogmatic affirmation, whereas in reality this ideal is only one of many that could take shape in “life”, and which is not in fact justified in and of itself, without a particular choice and without faith in it. The fact that the fixed point of reference set up beyond nihilism lacks a true foundation so long as one insists on pure immanence is already apparent in the part of Nietzsche’s thought that deals with historical criticism and sociology. The entire world of “higher” values is interpreted there as refelcting a “decadence”. But at the same time these values are seen as the weapons of a hidden will to power on the part of a certain human group, which has used them to hamper another group whose life and ideals resemble those of the superman. The instinct of decadence itself is then presented as a special variety of the will to power. Now, it is obvious that in function of a mere will to power, all distinctions vanish: there are no more super-men or sheep-men, neither affirmers nor negators of life. There is only a variety of techniques, of means (far from being reducible to sheer physical force), tending to make one human class or another prevail; means that are indiscriminately called good in proportion to their success. If in life and the history of civilization there exist phases of rise and decline, phases of creation and destruction and decadence, what authorizes us to ascrive value to one rather than to the others? Why should decadence be an evil? It is all life, and all justifiable in terms of life, if this is truly taken in its irrational naked reality, outside any theology or teleology, as Nietzsche would have wished. Even “anti-nature” and “violence against life” enter into it. Once again, all firm ground gives way.
    Nietzsche moreover wanted to restore its “innocence” to becoming by freeing it from all finality and intentionality, so as to free man and let him walk on his own feet - the same Nietzsche who had justly criticized and rejected evolutionism and Darwinism because he could see that the higher figures and types of life are only sporadic and fortuituous cases. They are positions that man gains only in order to lose them, and they create no continuity because they consist of beings who are more than usually exposed to danger and destruction. The philosopher himself ends with a finalistic concession when, in order to give meaning to present-day humanity, he proposes a goal worth dedicating oneself to, and even sacrificing oneself and dying for. Mutatis mutandis, things here are not very different from the Marxist-communist eschatology, in which the mirage of a future human condition after the worldwide revolution serves to give meaning to everything inflicted on the man of today in the areas controlled by this ideology. This is a flagrant contradiction of the demands of a life that is its own meaning. The second point is that the pure affirmation of life does not necessarily coincide with the will to power in the strict, qualitative sense, nor with the affirmation of the superman.
    Thus Nietzsche’s solution is only a pseudosolution. A true nihilism does not spare even the doctrine of the superman. Waht is left, if one wants to be radical and follow a line of strict coherence, and what we can accept in our investigation, is the idea that Nietzsche expressed through the symbol of the eternal return. It is the affirmation, now truly unconditional, of all that is and of all that one is, of one’s own nature and one’s own situation. It is the attitude of one whose self-affirmation and self-identity come from the very roots of his being: who is not scared but exalted by the prospect that for an indefinite repetition of identical cosmic cycles he has been what he is, and will be again, innumerical times. Naturally we are dealing with nothing more than a myth, which has the simple, pragmatic value of a test of strength. But there is another view that in fact leads beyond the world of becoming and toward an eternalization of the being. Nietzsche differs little from Neoplatonism when he says: “For everything to return is the closest approximation of a world of becoming to a world of being.” And also: “To impose the character of being upon becoming is the supreme test of power.” At its base, this leads to an opening beyond immanence unilaterally conceived, and toward the feeling that “all things have been baptized in the font of eternity and beyond good and evil”. The same thing was taught in the world of Tradition; and it is uncontestable that a confused thirst for eternity runs through Nietzsche’s works, even opening to certain momentary ecstasies. One recalls Zarathustra invoking “the joy that wills the eternity of everything, a deep eternity” like the heavens above, “pure, profound abyss of light”.

    From Ride the Tiger, p. 34-40

  4. #44
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Dagna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Northern German, Scandinavian
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Norway Norway
    Location
    Norway
    Gender
    Age
    41
    Politics
    Classic Liberalism
    Religion
    Agnosticism
    Posts
    2,098
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    19
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    75
    Thanked in
    47 Posts

    Übermensch

    Übermensch


    The concept of the Übermensch (help·info) (Latin homo superior; English: "super-man", "over-man", or "super-human"; see below) was explained by Friedrich Nietzsche in his 1883 book Thus Spoke Zarathustra (German: Also Sprach Zarathustra). The protagonist, Zarathustra, contends that "man is something which ought to be overcome". Nietzsche's conception of the übermensch, as embodied by Zarathustra, was of a being seeking to replace itself through metaphysical knowledge and the "creation of new values", to move "over" its state of being to a greater "height".

    Nietzsche's Also Sprach Zarathustra appeared in the context of Charles Darwin's 1859 The Origin of Species, which posited humankind as a relative of lesser animals. While Nietzsche disputed that his work was easily reducible to evolutionary metaphor,[1] the concept of übermensch appears to be informed by this context:

    "All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment..."
    [Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra]

    The philosopher's conception of the übermensch nonetheless departs from Darwinism in its belief that one man is above another at any given point in time, that equality among humans is myth and the product of a depraved Christian slave morality. An individual need not wait for evolution; rather, it is within the scope of an individual's life to "overcome". Nietzsche's conception of the overman's overcomings also challenged the Darwinist (and indeed Hegelian) implication of linear improvement over time.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cbermensch

    What do you define as Übermensch?


    Die Sonne scheint noch.

  5. #45
    Senior Member MockTurtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Last Online
    Saturday, April 28th, 2012 @ 04:33 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Northwestern Europe
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Washington Washington
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Racialist Free Enterprise
    Religion
    Atheism
    Posts
    462
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    This explanation is fairly accurate, though still incomplete (not surprising considering where it's from!). One thing that people often forget is that Nietzsche discussed the concept of the Übermensch in the Nachlass at some considerable length. From these notes it's clear that Nietzsche was actually more critical of Darwin than most people realize. In many ways, he considered these theories to still be under the influence of the 'slave values' that had been so overpowering since antiquity. Another important thing to keep in mind is the conclusions that Nietzsche came to while he was still a professor at Basel University (Switzerland) -- as he explained in 'The Birth of Tragedy' (1872), life is inherently tragic because nihilism (i.e. no absolute values/truth) is a fundamental condition of reality.

    This is the whole background to his relationship with Wagner and his early conviction that Wagner's music-drama might be the source of redemption in a modern, valueless world in which the formerly dominant principles of religion have been undermined by science. In this situation, the Übermensch is someone who, after accepting the fact that absolute truth is an impossibility, utilizes his creative genius to establish new 'noble values' that will give meaning to human existence and thereby generate ambition and vitality. For the Übermensch, the key is his unique mindset, which is less influenced by external circumstances (the sort of thing that the traditional 'herd creatures' are formed and shaped by) than he is motivated by an unyielding internal moral compass...

    Still, one of the things that is unclear for many people is the precise type of individual that Nietzsche had in mind. Is it a Napoleon type (actually referenced by him a number of times) who is capable of creating new values through military might? Or, is it a Goethe type, someone who is capable of developing a new worldview through the avenues of artistic expression? Or perhaps it's both, as in the famous 'artist-tyrant' concept?

  6. #46
    Naturbursche
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Boche's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Wednesday, December 24th, 2008 @ 10:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Country
    Germany Germany
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,575
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Friedrich Nietzsches Übermensch Explanation is accurate, but don't read the Wikipedia Article, which is incomplete.

    Go buy the Book "Also sprach Zarathustra" from Nietzsche and read it yourself!

    Mental and Physical Strengthening is the way of becoming an Übermensch. If you can't bear too much pain, then it's a Mental Issue or a Physical Issue, or both? I think both.
    I think the New Modernity is working against the Übermensch-Dasein. People become more and more emotional in to bad ways which are not needed.
    Traditions were always working more for the Übermensch Goal.
    Becoming a 100% Übermensch is impossible anyway, but as far as i remember when i read "Also sprach Zarathustra", the Übermensch was never perfect, just advanced.




    Gruß,
    Boche

  7. #47
    Senior Member Airmanareiks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Last Online
    Thursday, February 3rd, 2011 @ 07:09 PM
    Ethnicity
    Icelandic
    Gender
    Age
    51
    Posts
    176
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Meaning

    To be above man.

    That is to be above pain and pleasure. To above what others think of you, to be above what you think of your self. To be above animality, to obtain godhood which is pure idea or hugr. rather then ape, animal.

  8. #48
    Senior Member Elysium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, October 8th, 2009 @ 11:09 AM
    Gender
    Age
    27
    Posts
    447
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    I don't really think how we as under man can determine what determines above man.
    Perfection.

    War is God's way of teaching Americans geography. - Ambrose Bierce

  9. #49
    Senior Member Imperator X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Last Online
    Saturday, April 4th, 2009 @ 01:47 AM
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic
    Subrace
    Nordid/Atlantid.
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Massachusetts Massachusetts
    Location
    Boston
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Single, looking
    Occupation
    Looking
    Politics
    Constitutionalist
    Religion
    Hindu - Shakta
    Posts
    794
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    The one thing that is problematic for me with Nietzsche.. If he applied his own principles they certainly didn't work out well for him... He was screwed over by that George woman, and Salome I think it was, rejected him twice.. He died unmarried, childless and insane.
    SVMDEVSSVMCAESARSVMCAELVMETINFERNVM

  10. #50
    Senior Member Airmanareiks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Last Online
    Thursday, February 3rd, 2011 @ 07:09 PM
    Ethnicity
    Icelandic
    Gender
    Age
    51
    Posts
    176
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Ubermensch
    To be above human
    To be above animal
    To be above pain pleasure
    To be above instinct

    What is the Untermensch?
    Ugly
    Vile
    Base
    Stupid
    Decadent

    What is the opposite?
    Noble
    Handsome
    Wits
    Disciplined

    Good genetics and breeding.
    Living the life of the Guthiud.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Why Germanics Always Fail at Becoming the Overman
    By Anonymous in forum Germanic Heathenry
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sunday, January 29th, 2012, 06:22 PM
  2. What Are the Qualities of the Übermensch?
    By NordicGuard in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: Friday, January 8th, 2010, 01:20 AM
  3. De koffiekleurige 'overman'
    By Chlodovech in forum Netherlands & Flanders
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Wednesday, October 18th, 2006, 04:40 PM
  4. Similarities between Nietzsche's Übermensch and the Survivor Personality
    By Jack in forum Psychology, Behavior, & Neuroscience
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Thursday, December 16th, 2004, 03:53 PM
  5. Replies: 13
    Last Post: Thursday, November 20th, 2003, 11:44 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •