Talk:Übermensch

what about those born without religion raised as atheists or raised in other eastern faith traditions like taoism?

What about them?

Seth Mahoney 18:22, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There's more to it than atheism, actually. Nietzsche would say they still have the cultural baggage of conventional ethics to deal with and would presumably consider the Dao or secular humanism to be obstacles to be overcome as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.220.236 (talk • contribs) 15 Nov 2005 (UTC) Note that this comment is about 20 months later than the exchange into which it is inserted.

I deleted the passage in the first sentence, which claimed that the entire philosophy of Thus Spoke Zarathrustra is based on the phrase "God is dead." This isn't true, as far as I know. Is there any support for this claim? — Adam Conover † 01:29, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

Confusion with Biology?

"Nietzsche's writings are spiritual and philosophical in character, and do not state that the central ideas are biological, psychological, sociological, or sociobiological."

Surely Nietzsche considered the spiritual and philosophical to be signs of the biological, psychological, sociological and sociobiological? The very short chapter 'The Improver's of Mankind' from Twilight of the Idols as far as I can tell can only be read this way. - "To this extent moral judgement is never to be taken literally: as such it never contains anything but nonsense. But as semeiotics it remains of incalculable value: it reveals, to the informed man at least, the most precious realities of cultures and inner worlds which did not know enough to 'understand' themselves. Morality is merely sign-language, merely symptomatology: one must already know what it is about to derive profit from it." is there much that is as 'spiritual' and 'philosophical' as morality?

Then, following this quote a few sentences later: "In all ages one has wanted to 'improve' men: this above all is what morality has meant. But one word can conceal the most divergent tendencies. Both the taming of the beast man and the breeding of a certain species of man has been called 'improvement': only these zoological termini express realities - realities to be sure of which the typical 'improver', the priest, knows nothing - wants to know nothing . . ."

The follows passages of the 'sickness' of man under Christianity: a sickness that Nietzsche is the result of taming of some humans by others (not metaphorically.) Following this, a passage on the 'Law of Manu' which proposes the task of breeding four races simultaneously, where Nietzsche discusses human breeding in the same way as a farmer would discuss the breeding of animals. Nietzsche's comments comparing the Law of Manu and the New Testament show that he preferred the former to the latter.

Backup from the man himself

I think there needs to be some quotes/translations to back up of the interpretations of the Overman placed in this article. This will contribute to the overhaul. Zarathustra has some excellent references.--Knucmo2 22:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Is anyone working on this? I'd be interested in doing a major clean-up of this article, including fleshing out the primary philosophical content with citations from primary sources. --MVandegrift 01:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you should go for it. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Untermensch

I think the term should be mentioned in the article because linguistically it is the opposite of Übermensch. Andries 22:51, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

And what does the term have to do with Nietzsche's philosophy? I don't think that every article warrants a mention of every word that is linguistically its opposite - in this case, the article is about Nietzsche's philosophy and a particular term used in it, not about the word its self. -Seth Mahoney 01:54, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

The article is about Übermensch so it seems to me that the opposite should be mentioned if it is derived from Nietsche's philosophy, even if it is distorted. If this is true then it should be mentioned, I think. I don't know much about the subject, I have to admit. Andries 04:29, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe that Nietzsche uses the word Untermensch - to him, its equivalent would seem to be just human. That is, the Ubermensch is the superman (literally, overman), and his opposite, or that which he develops in a sense in opposition to, is the human. But Nietzsche also didn't seem so much to favor binary oppositions but rather continuums - the only opposition he really spends much time writing about is the Apolonian and Dionysian and even these are found, ideally, in a sort of harmonious conflict in each individual and in each society. -Seth Mahoney 06:01, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Nietzsche does use the term "Untermensch" though.

Literal meaning of Übermensch, superior man or overman?

Adam Connover is right that the main meaning of the German word "ueber" is "over" but in some cases it can mean higher or superior. I looked up the word ueber in a German->Dutch dictionary and the meaning of superior or higher is mentioned second. I compared with the German version of this article and they translate here the word "ueber" as superior. So I think superior is the right translation here. Andries 19:29, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, even if "superior" should be included in the translation, it's not the literal translation. "Over" needs to be included as well because the symbolism of "over" and "under" is important throughout the work. I am therefore going to try to use both. — Adam Conover † 20:03, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

May be superior is not the literal translation but then it is higher. Over is not the right literal translation here.Andries 20:16, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Based on Kaufmann's translation, which is by far the standard, the correct translation is "overman". Can you find a reference for "higher man"? (For now, let's stop changing this until we reach an agreement.) Also, see Also Sprach Zarathustra -- it references the fact that "ubermensch" is specifically a pun on "over", because it relates to the emergence of the sun over the mountains, and is contrasted with "unter". — Adam Conover † 20:22, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

I have to admit that I don't know much about Nietzsche but I know something about German language. I looked up in the German->Dutch dictionary (Thieme, of reasonable quality) the adjective uebermenschlich which is translated in Dutch as "bovenmenselijk" which means beyond human, in other words superior. Besides the German wikipedia gives a different origin of the word uebermensch. It says ' "Der Mensch ist ein Seil, geknüpft zwischen Tier und Übermensch, - ein Seil über einem Abgrunde." (Zarathustra S.14)

Im großen Plan der Evolution ist es aus der Sicht Nietzsches die Aufgabe des Menschen, seinen Nachfolger hervorzubringen, der höher entwickelt ist als er selbst. Diesen dem Menschen überlegenen Menschen nennt Nietzsche den "Übermenschen".'

translated this means. '"Man is a rope tied between animal and Uebermensch, - a rope over the abyss." (Zarathustra S.14) According to Nietzsche's view it is in the big plan of the evolution the aim of man to make a successor who has been developed higher than he himself. Nietzsche calls this man who is superior to other men Uebermensch. '

Higher can be a good literal translation of the prefix ueber. I am certain of that based on the dictionary. Andries 20:54, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I think the confusion comes from the fact that ueber means both over and higher, literally. There is not one word for in English. Andries 21:25, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm a little shocked that you engaged in this whole discussion even though you "don't know much about Nietzsche." I actually do know quite a bit about Nietzsche, and I was under the impression that "overman" is the now-accepted literal translation. I took your disagreements seriously because I thought that you were also familiar with Nietzsche, but if you aren't, I'm afraid I have to reinstate my original version. The translation of "ubermensch" as "overman" is not a matter of interpretation -- rather, it was the product of a specific effort by translators to find which of the man translations of "uber" best fits the context in which Nietzsche placed his newly coined word. They determined that "overman" best expressed his meaning. I have references, of course: [1], [2], [3]. Also, I can reference specific passages in TSZ which show that "overman" is the best translation, such as the allusion in which one tightrope walker jumps over another. In this sentence, the word "uber" is used, yet the one man is clearly not jumping "higher" than the other, but "over" him. If you can back up your argument with citations or German and English passages in Nietzsche, I'd love to see it, but until now I think we have to let my version stand. No offense, but I have to be adamant upon this point. — Adam Conover † 02:51, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

The Dutch version of Encarta both mentions overman and superhuman as a translation but I won't insist because your references look good. Andries 16:53, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Andries. I'm sorry that I had to be so blunt, and I'm glad we reached an agreement on this. Nice work. — Adam Conover † 19:39, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

I just added a few words - feeling that the notions given in the text with "Überwindung (overcoming), überstehen/durchstehen (come through/get over), übersetzen (translate/take across)," are misleading. The closest word to look at is the adjective "übermenschlich" which is a very common exaggeration used to say that someone did something with his utmost strength and that he achieved something no human being should be capable of. One should secondly look at the closest parallel constructions. "Übernatürlich" means no longer natural, supernatural would be the English translation, überirdisch from irdisch i.e. earthly means heavenly (whilst "oberirdisch" just means above ground. The problems Germans have with "Superman" are quite different. The word lacks the trascendency aspect, the devine power - and it focusses on "man". This is, of course the word to be used for both sexes in English, yet "Mensch" is "human", and the idea is very much that of a human being and an evolution into something highet it might be capable of... Germans can speak of Supermann, and that will be a close translation of superman. It will lack all the secret transcendentalism carried with the Word Übermensch. Übermensch could be translated with "more than human" - I guess that would be the closest translation a German would chose, now I do not know what you will say with a native English ear about "more than human", and then you will have the problem of finding no compound to create the "more-than-human-being"...

"Untermensch" is at the same time effectively less than a human being - a being which does not deserve to be called a human being - a being rather on the level of animals. Something real human beings should make use of rather than respect. Quite an ugly language we speak, I confess.

If you feel you can live with my German-English translation you might change the passage accordingly. --Olaf Simons (who studied both languages for some decades but who will have to remain a German speaker) 15:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't "man who is superior" mean the same thing as "overman"? I don't see why there needs to be a one-or-the-other attitude on which translation to use, because overman and superman are synonyms. Raven 21:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Will to Destruction

Where in Zarathustra, or anywhere in Nietzsche's writings, does he claim a "will to destruction"? Also: I believe "Overman" is the best translation. The "uber" in the word is meant to go along with the "overcoming" theme of the rest of Nietzsche's work. Superman is a poor translation, not really what I think he intended. The "Overman" is one who "Overcomes". --DanielCD 19:47, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I concur. A reference in the "Will to Destruction" section would be helpful, I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere else. I think it might be better to mention the "three metamorphoses" rather than, or at least in addition to, "Will to Destruction" and "Will to Power". I plan on doing some more research and making these changes at some point. Mixx 21:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Non-informative sentence

I removed the following sentence:

Also cf. the bottom paragraph of the article on über.

If the original editor wants to put it back, please use complete words rather than abbreviations, and summaries rather than "please see this link". If you simply must include sentences with no info to point readers to other articles, please just use the See also: section. -Seth Mahoney 22:24, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

God is dead

I removed the following paragraph:

Therefore Nietzsche wants to destroy Christian dogmas and separate man from the idea of God. He underlines this by his thesis of claiming that man is incapable of grasping the idea of God as God dwells beyond and man in this world.

Though Nietzsche is definately unappreciative of Christian teachings, I don't think that he really targets them any more than the teachings of Plato, Buddha, the skeptics, Jews, and so on. Further, this paragraph directly contradicts the prior paragraph (which I'm going to work on in a minute) without representing itself as an alternative view (is God unreal, or far away?). -Seth Mahoney 20:47, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Nazi Germany Category?

Why is this article in Nazi German category? Comrade Tassadar 00:08, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good question. It isn't anymore. — Adam Conover † 01:42, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Examples of Philosophical Systems that Place an Emphasis in a Different Realm

I removed the word, "Judaism" (in reference to philosophical systems that place more of an emphasis on the next world than on this one). Firstly, one religion alone should not be named. Secondly, although I am not Jewish, I have studied the religion extensively and the opinion that was once found on the wiki is simply not the case. And, even if a case could be made, it is far from the strongest example supporting the point with regards to modern religions.

Superman

"... The inescapable reference is that the American comic book character Superman was originally intended to be a powerful villain and hence was closer to the Nietzschean usage, though of course in no profound manner. ..."

I for one find it easy to escape this odd notion, though the right way to rewrite the paragraph is harder. —wwoods 00:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Although this is rather trivial, I must point out that the original version was accurate. In 1933, the creators of Superman published a short story which involved an evil man with mental powers (called "the Superman"). It can be argued whether or not this was the SAME Superman that we may or may not be able to avoid, but since it was the brainchild of the same writer (Jerry Siegel) it is usable. I would fix it, but I fear being accused of vandalism. Also, since the farmiliar character is almost always portrayed as an enemy of what Hitler stood for (in the '40's an enemy of Hitler himself), it doesn't make sense in the current form.

—Epiphone83 May 26, 2005

Kim Newman

"More recently, Kim Newman's short story Übermensch deliberately combined the two words with an alternative history in which Superman was brought up in Germany and eventually imprisoned as a Nazi."

Is this really notable enough(with respect to philosophy) to belong in the article on the Nietzschean übermensch? The Bulwer-Lytton example illustrates the usage of "superman" as a literary term; the mention of the short story doesn't seem to have a similar function. Furthermore, Newman's short story, though it indeed would seem to be an example of using both terms in one work, seems out of place - firstly, because Superman(the comic book character) is completely irrelevant to the article, and secondly, because the work isn't even claimed to be notable in its treatment of Nietzsche's philosophy.

84.48.89.5 01:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll remove it, hadn't noticed it. I moved it to Talk:Kim Newman to be dealt with. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

This article states that anti-semitism is "absent" in Nietzsche's writings. While I certainly agree within the context of this statement that his work was misappropriated by the Nazis, and that he devoted a great deal of time and energy arguing against anti-semitism, racism in general, and nationalism, to say that anti-semitism is altogether absent is misleading. His earlier writings and many of his letters clearly display anti-semitic tendencies that are later abandoned, complicated, or transformed as his philosophical ideas changed and he rejected--in large part--the influence of Wagner (and others). I would recommend changing the article slightly to account for this complexity and ambiguity (though maintaining that he was misused by the Nazis, in large part due to his sister).--MS

• I was about to say more or less the same and noticed this already here. Nietzsche's views on the Jews were complicated: even in his mature writing, his animus toward Christianity played out at times (in lesser degree) against the Jews as the people among whom Christianity spawned. This was not at all the exterminationist anti-semitism of the Nazis, but the current wording—that the very "concept" is "absent" is an overstatement. I'll give a few days for someone else who has been involved in the article to take this on, but if no one responds, I will edit. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:27, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say, (at least in his mature works, clearly Wagner lead him astray early on), that he blasted the philosophical tenents of the Jewish relgion, rather than the Jews themselves? He certainly despised Christian theology, but wasn't racist towards Europeans. Spaltavian 01:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Source?

The passage that begins "However, another problem is that when the Ubermensch lives according to his Will to Power… doesn't particularly sound to me like Nietzsche. Is it cited from somewhere? If no one can answer that in the next 48 hours, I will cut it to the talk page. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Re-evaluating or destroying old articles

Some of this article is incomprehensible. The lead is fine, but then it plunges off into obscurity. Just as an example, consider the following paragraph:

Nietzsche's motivation for the claim 'God is dead' is the destruction of the Christian conscience, i.e., a God-centered way of thinking, and the fateful will to break out. His symbols for this are flame and thunder. Only by breaking out of the idealistic norms one can become Übermensch, which literally means "beyond human." The initial point of destruction is the church, which is, according to Nietzsche, the exact opposite of what Jesus preached. The reason for this is a process initiated by the apostle Paul, which caused a transfiguration of Jesus' teachings to a remedy-punishment doctrine. Zarathustra was the prototype for Nietzsche's Übermensch.

• "Nietzsche's motivation for the claim 'God is dead' is the destruction of the Christian conscience, i.e., a God-centered way of thinking…" - so far, so good
• "…and the fateful will to break out." "fateful" according to whom? (Nietzsche?) Whose… fate? To "break out of what"?
• "His symbols for this are flame and thunder." Symbols for the death of God? or for the will? or what?
• "Only by breaking out of the idealistic norms one can become Übermensch, which literally means 'beyond human.'" - fine
• "The initial point of destruction is the church, which is, according to Nietzsche, the exact opposite of what Jesus preached." - "The initial point of destruction": utterly unclear. The first thing the Übermensch must destroy, perhaps? And I'd expect upper-case Church (the institution) not an individual church. And what is "the exact opposite of what Jesus preached"? I presume present-day (well, then-present-day) organized Christianity, but the way this reads, you'd have to know that coming in.
• "The reason for this is a process initiated by the apostle Paul, which caused a transfiguration of Jesus' teachings to a remedy-punishment doctrine." "Remedy-punishment doctrine" is very awkward. Perhaps it is just an error for "reward-punishment doctrine"? Or perhaps it means to say something else entirely.
• "Zarathustra was the prototype for Nietzsche's Übermensch." How "thus"? He hasn't even been mentioned so far!

Anyway, that seems to be about par for this article. I suggest that either someone with knowledge and references can use its structure and rewrite heavily, or we can toss it and start over, because the present article does our readers a disservice. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Callings of Nietzsche.

The article currently says: No to a great man, not to a "superman" per se, but to something above man, greater. Something separate from and greater than man. Many scholars believe[citation needed] that the Übermensch is a psychological change, and in fact it involves a major psychological change; but it is in fact[citation needed] not only a mindset shift but a genetic shift. Why else, if this were not true, would Zarathustra go into Man's past, to Apes: "What is the ape to men? A laughing-stock or a painful embarrassment. And just so shall men be to the Superman: a laughing-stock or a painful embarrassment."

The interpretation of the Overman as something genetically different from normal man is weird. I've never come across it anywhere else, although it does smack of Nazi eugenics and the Herrenvolk concept in Nazi ideology. Seems quite doubtful to me, given that Nietzsche seemed to think that a normal man could himself (and not just his descendants) become an Overman. Sounds like this section needs a lot of cleaning up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkberg (talk • contribs) 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I would be inclined to clean it up with an eraser. -- Jmabel | Talk

I second the eraser suggestion. In the first place, this section seems to advocate the positions it purports to describe - both its reading of Nietsche ('many scholars believe... but it is in fact...') and the views it treats as his ('He calls us to become a step into the right direction... the Future is the Overman, we are merely a strand in a great rope that leads to the Overman. "Let your will say: The Superman shall be the meaning of the earth!"'). Secondly, POV issues aside, readings of the Übermensch concept belong in the body of the article, not in their own sections (the article should not argue against itself). And finally, as Monkberg suggests, the idea of a genetically distinctive Übermensch doesn't sit easily with Nietsche's own account. I've never seen such a reading seriously proposed either. I shall delete in a day or so if there's no objection/radical edit in the meantime. Whortleberry 05:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

nietzsche -- authoritarian?

Nietzsche had an admiration of Napoleon Bonaparte and Julius Caesar, and advocated an authoritarian united Europe.

Can I have a citation for this? Nietzsche styled himself apolitical. — goethean ॐ 23:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

WRT Napoleon, N describes him as a "synthesis of Unmensch (inhuman) and Übermensch" at the end of section 16 of Genealogy of Morals. I wouldn't exactly call that 'admiration', but it's clearly a recognition of an element of greatness in Napoleon's makeup. I think N mentions him elsewhere, but I can't remember where it is or what he says. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

In The Will to Power (i.e., from his Nachlass; trans. Walter Kaufmann), in sect. 1017 and passim, Nietzsche annotated on Napoleon in similar form to sect. 16 of Genealogy of Morals:

The struggle against the eighteenth century: its supreme overcoming by Goethe and Napoleon. Schopenhauer, too, struggles against it; but he involuntarily steps back into the seventeenth century—he is a modern Pascal, with Pascalian value judgments without Christianity. Schopenhauer was not strong enough for a new Yes.

Napoleon: insight that the higher and the terrible man necessarily belong together. The "man" reinstated [i.e., rather than the Christian "good man" and the "socialist ideal" (stated previously in sect. 1017)]; the woman again accorded her due tribute of contempt and fear. "Totality" as health and highest activity; the straight line, the grand style in action rediscovered; the most powerful instinct, that of life itself, the lust to rule [i.e., "the will to power"], affirmed.

Then in sect. 1026 as a kind of forethought in light of his "inhuman" character:

Such men as Napoleon must come again and again and confirm the belief in the autocracy of the individual: but he himself was corrupted by the means he had to employ and lost noblesse of character. If he had had to prevail among a different kind of man he could have employed other means; and it would thus not seem to be a necessity for a Caesar to become bad [my italics for this last phrase].

Very revealing indeed. Whatever the case, Nietzsche was far from being an "authoritarian" and that is most certainly not indicated by his extolments about Napoleon. Added to this would be a reading of Goethe's views on Napoleon, which may be found in Conversations with Eckermann. In short, out with the false statement: "advocated an authoritarian united Europe". It is a miscalculation, perhaps even (consciously or unconsciously) under the guise of Fascist-Nazi ideology, for which we are no longer naive enough to accept as remotely plausible. In any event, it may be fruitful to recognize his statement on "[woman's] due tribute" in addition to his view on Schopenhauer à la Pascal.^ignis_scripta 20:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you be able to give me the exact date of the fragment (sect.1026 - I don't use an English edition and mines are classed by date)? I would really be interested by it. Thanks in advance. Lapaz 20:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Most certainly. Sect. 1026 is under Summer-Fall 1883, while—for sake of interest—sect. 1017 is Spring-Fall 1887. (I in this consideration corrected a minor mistake within my post above, which necessarily alters neither the appurtances of the posed concretions in my previous entry nor the intended meaning but the chronological sequence during which instance the notes were written.)^ignis_scripta 01:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment moved here from article

This page appears to have an unresolved commentary on itself presented as part of the text. Someone with the correct authority should correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.229.126 (talk • contribs)

Moved from article by Camillus (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

and advocated an authoritarian united Europe.

I've removed that statement. I remember Nietzsche saying in one of his writings that traditional, imperialistic and powerful European states should be destroyed in favour of smaller ones. I'll look it up to see in exactly which text he says that. --GTubio 17:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Socrates an Overman?

Nietzsche spoke about Socrates as the author of the decline in western philosophy. I think he would be the last person for being an overman... All this despite he, of course, greatly influenced European thoight. --GTubio 14:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No. There have been no overmen. That is one of the first things made clear. Besides, Nietzsche would not consider Socrates an overman if there even was one. Nietzsche strongly criticized Socrates, Plato, and Platonism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.2.132.100 (talk • contribs) 23 April 2006.

Archeology & Heinrich Hemmlar

While this is not uninteresting, I removed it on the grounds that we are not discussing the Nazi' ideology of Aryanism, but the Nazi instrumentalization of Nietzsche's philosophy & in particular of the "Overman" (this is why Alfred Baümler is quoted, as he was one of the main "philosopher" against whom Heidegger "battled"): "One of the goals set by Hitler was to assign Heinrich Hemmlar, the commander of the SS, in uncovering evidence that germans is the Aryan race. Archeology played am important role in the early beginnings of the SS." The other addition by same user was "He believes this dualism, the deitification and the demonization in religion, is hindering our evolution to the overman.", which I left but also find discutable, since it's speaks of an "evolution to the overman" - Nietzsche never thought the overman as a future for the human specie, but only as a future possibility for some individuals. See Pierre Klossowski's quotes on his passages about the "future tyrants of Europe". Lapaz 15:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)