Questions about Nietzsche

That leaves us staring at the daunting question of whether any common ground can actually exist between us. I mean, how are we supposed to truly grasp what the N. Overman is saying if we have no way to latch onto his thought process—if there’s no shared essence, no underlying idea, or even a flicker of a concept provided by the N. Overman himself to act as a bridge? Or, if we follow the logic of Wittgenstein, how does an N. Overman, who clearly operates within the realm of a private language, manage to make sense of his own internal monologue in the first place?

Yeah, it’s hard to wrap your head around. He’s an "open system"—someone who looked at the status quo, refused to play by the rules, and risked everything just to forge something new based on pure, internal necessity. He views will as a way to disrupt the very fabric of reality, and if that works, anyone can theoretically follow suit. If one person manages to bend matter to their will, it proves the concept isn't a fluke; it opens the door for everyone else. But here’s where I see the disconnect: there is a massive gap between the "will to power" and actual power. Honestly, the phrase "will to power" itself screams inadequacy. It feels fundamentally dishonest because it focuses on the *desire* for an effect—the craving for control—rather than the possession of power itself. That’s where I think Nietzsche stumbled. Real power, the kind he's actually chasing, should stem from the truth of one's own being.

coastalwalker said:Yeah, it’s hard to wrap your head around. He’s an "open system"—someone who looked at the status quo, refused to play by the rules, and risked everything just to forge something new based on pure, internal necessity. He views will as a way to disrupt the very fabric of reality, and if that works, anyone can theoretically follow suit. If one person manages to bend matter to their will, it proves the concept isn't a fluke; it opens the door for everyone else. But here’s where I see the disconnect: there is a massive gap between the "will to power" and actual power. Honestly, the phrase "will to power" itself screams inadequacy. It feels fundamentally dishonest because it focuses on the *desire* for an effect—the craving for control—rather than the possession of power itself. That’s where I think Nietzsche stumbled. Real power, the kind he's actually chasing, should stem from the truth of one's own being.

That moment doesn't make sense from a linguistic or structural standpoint. The form stems directly from perception—it acts as a 'private' language, but once recognition occurs, it ceases to be private.

When Nietzsche actually broke down

ironmarlin1 said:Yes, it really does seem that's how Nietzsche views the whole thing. Aristocratic morality is defined by the self; it dictates what is good without ever bowing to some external benchmark. Our tendency to project an outside ''ideal'' or a set of rigid ''criteria'' for the N. Overman to follow is really just a symptom of our own failure—our inability, unlike Nietzsche, to finally break free from the shackles of Platonic categories.

If that's the case, then the N. Overman is basically just an autist. It leads straight to madness, much like Kurtz in Conrad's "heart of darkness" (or Coppola's "Apocalypse Now").

ironmarlin1 said:That leaves us staring at the daunting question of whether any common ground can actually exist between us. I mean, how are we supposed to truly grasp what the N. Overman is saying if we have no way to latch onto his thought process—if there’s no shared essence, no underlying idea, or even a flicker of a concept provided by the N. Overman himself to act as a bridge? Or, if we follow the logic of Wittgenstein, how does an N. Overman, who clearly operates within the realm of a private language, manage to make sense of his own internal monologue in the first place?

The N. Overman, or honestly, just religion itself—the whole phenomenon of it.

To me, the N. Overman is basically just a fancy pseudonym for some ideology that presents itself as supernatural or superior, something kept on life support by a group of people who care way more about those collective ideals than they do about their own individual selves.

There’s no real dialogue there, no actual debate, nothing except for those circular discussions designed purely to keep the ideology breathing. It's all just echo chambers where any argument that challenges the beloved dogma or its foundations isn't even considered valid. At best, they’ll just keep dissenters at a polite distance and smoothly dismiss their points, or sometimes just write the people themselves off entirely simply because they don't fit the ideological mold or have different personal leanings.

The truth is, even the people making up the "N. Overman" don't truly understand it, because the N. Overman is really just a messy amalgam of different folks with wildly different perspectives from various eras. And the specific ideas chosen to be part of this "overman" identity were picked simply because, at that specific moment in history, they were deemed necessary to "improve" the concept—which usually just means they grabbed whatever was best available at the time. It’s like what Amanda Jackson5 said regarding Hegel's scattering of logic; a certain point is reached where the subject matter has been developed enough that a complete logical system becomes possible.

Look, there's no issue if you just want to wrap your head around how the N. Overman was perceived in some distant era, or if you want to go off and develop your own personal interpretation of it.
But whether that N. Overman is actually talking to you—to you, specifically...

That's pretty much it.

The N. Overman is about rising above the mere service of individual will. It’s Beg emerging from Nietzsche's eternal recurrence.

"Imagine one day or night, a demon creeps into your deepest solitude and says to you: 'The life you are living now and the life you have lived, you will have to live it all over again, an infinite number of times, and there will be nothing new in it. Every pain, every pleasure, every thought and sigh—every tiny and massive detail of your life will return to you in the exact same order and consequence. Even this spider and this moonlight among the
trees, even this moment and even me. The eternal hourglass of existence will turn once more, and you along with it, a single grain of dust among dust!' Would you not throw yourself down, gnashing your teeth and cursing the demon who spoke this?"

Nietzsche really could have used a decent sex life—not to mention the syphilis eventually finished him off. It’s a shame, honestly, because he had such incredible potential for deep thought. His writing style is absolutely massive, even if his actual philosophy eventually buckled under the weight of a brain that simply couldn't take any more.

Jason King45 said:Nietzsche really could have used a decent sex life—not to mention the syphilis eventually finished him off. It’s a shame, honestly, because he had such incredible potential for deep thought. His writing style is absolutely massive, even if his actual philosophy eventually buckled under the weight of a brain that simply couldn't take any more.

The view of the N. Overman is all too human—it's basically just an attempt to pull the spirit out of the gutter where the "last man" is wallowing. But since the spirit can't become a god again—given that God is dead—it has to settle for being the Overman.
Technically, you could just call it crap, but humanity will have to figure that out once it actually manages to exist.

Nietzsche is to the spirit what Tesla is to electricity.

The N. Overman is the ultimate catharsis for humanity.

redorca13 said:The view of the N. Overman is all too human—it's basically just an attempt to pull the spirit out of the gutter where the "last man" is wallowing. But since the spirit can't become a god again—given that God is dead—it has to settle for being the Overman.
Technically, you could just call it crap, but humanity will have to figure that out once it actually manages to exist.

Nietzsche is to the spirit what Tesla is to electricity.

🙂

The only thing truly superhuman is the Buddhist ideal of severing the will to live. An existence that finally grasps its own pathetic absurdity can choose to end itself, much like the concept of "eternal recurrence." The true expression of a self-aware will isn't the freedom to say "I want," but rather the freedom to say "I do NOT want." Because, let's face it, "truth is ugly." And the obvious purpose of life? Caring.
Nietzsche’s idealized instinct—which drives one toward life—isn't designed to serve the destruction of the will. But look, I'm not buying into that philosophy because I actually enjoy women; to quote the guru: "If you have ever said 'Yes!' to even a single joy, my friends, then you have said 'Yes!' to all the misery in the world." 🙂

Richard Nelson84 said:The N. Overman is the ultimate catharsis for humanity.

Catharsis is about stripping a person down to nothing, whereas the Superman is about fully embracing who you are and then rising above it.

Jason King45 said:🙂

The only thing truly superhuman is the Buddhist ideal of severing the will to live. An existence that finally grasps its own pathetic absurdity can choose to end itself, much like the concept of "eternal recurrence." The true expression of a self-aware will isn't the freedom to say "I want," but rather the freedom to say "I do NOT want." Because, let's face it, "truth is ugly." And the obvious purpose of life? Caring.
Nietzsche’s idealized instinct—which drives one toward life—isn't designed to serve the destruction of the will. But look, I'm not buying into that philosophy because I actually enjoy women; to quote the guru: "If you have ever said 'Yes!' to even a single joy, my friends, then you have said 'Yes!' to all the misery in the world." 🙂

It's funny how you cherry-pick Nietzsche's teachings just to try and dismiss him.

What you're basically arguing is like saying Tesla should just forget his discoveries because he never had a wife or a girlfriend.
Go actually accomplish something meaningful first, settle down your inner animal, and then maybe we can talk about Nietzsche and philosophy.

See, even loving women isn't enough for you if you don't actually have one.

Eternal recurrence is everywhere; everything is just one big cycle.

redorca13 said:It's funny how you cherry-pick Nietzsche's teachings just to try and dismiss him.

What you're basically arguing is like saying Tesla should just forget his discoveries because he never had a wife or a girlfriend.
Go actually accomplish something meaningful first, settle down your inner animal, and then maybe we can talk about Nietzsche and philosophy.

See, even loving women isn't enough for you if you don't actually have one.

Eternal recurrence is everywhere; everything is just one big cycle.

🙂 So now we’re judging Tesla based on his romantic shortcomings? Look, Nietzsche is undeniably a genius—certainly more than I am—but he was still deluded despite himself. Jung thoroughly dismantled his positions. And besides, an animal doesn't just have one drive; that reproductive urge you're obsessing over is something Nietzsche himself glorified in those self-sustaining loops he got so deeply mired in.
I’m married🙂 and my wife is making dinner right now, but I will give you credit for being smart.
Nirvana is what finally breaks that cycle.
Read "Philosophia perennis" by Chuck Schumer—or maybe look up Thich Nhat Hanh if you prefer.

Jason King45 said:🙂 So now we’re judging Tesla based on his romantic shortcomings? Look, Nietzsche is undeniably a genius—certainly more than I am—but he was still deluded despite himself. Jung thoroughly dismantled his positions. And besides, an animal doesn't just have one drive; that reproductive urge you're obsessing over is something Nietzsche himself glorified in those self-sustaining loops he got so deeply mired in.
I’m married🙂 and my wife is making dinner right now, but I will give you credit for being smart.
Nirvana is what finally breaks that cycle.
Read "Philosophia perennis" by Chuck Schumer—or maybe look up Thich Nhat Hanh if you prefer.

I’m not "alluding" to anything; you're just flat-out disrespecting Nietzsche because you think he wasn't much of a man. That's why I brought up Tesla—you can dismiss him for those exact same reasons.
Nirvana is actually the ultimate proof that everything repeats, every single moment.
And stop trying to push books on me that I have zero interest in; that's not what this thread is about.

Look, I’m not spitting venom—I’m just observing. Honestly, I’ve just been rambling on this forum out of pure boredom; maybe I should have just stayed quiet. I don't even care about Nietzsche anymore.
I'm not trying to force any reading material on anyone (even if it actually relates to the topic), I'm simply pointing out where all my "brilliance" comes from.😬

ironmarlin1 said:That leaves us staring at the daunting question of whether any common ground can actually exist between us. I mean, how are we supposed to truly grasp what the N. Overman is saying if we have no way to latch onto his thought process—if there’s no shared essence, no underlying idea, or even a flicker of a concept provided by the N. Overman himself to act as a bridge? Or, if we follow the logic of Wittgenstein, how does an N. Overman, who clearly operates within the realm of a private language, manage to make sense of his own internal monologue in the first place?

Hmm... but didn't he say himself that his very authority stems from the fact that he is misunderstood?