Talk:Übermensch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of the Philosophy WikiProject, an attempt at creating a standardised, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use Philosophy resource. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. |
Contents |
[edit] Archives
[edit] Weak citation
I would point out that one of the few cited secondary sources, Pamornpol Jinatichra, is, according to his own Online CV PDF, a Ph.D. candidate in electrical engineering. All of his advanced formal education is in technical fields. Sounds like an impressive guy & all, but no more citable on this than any other bright person…like the ones contributing to this article. Which is to say, not really any more a reliable source than a Wikipedian's original research. - Jmabel | Talk 06:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- I saw that - I hoped that he got that somewhere else, but the author isn't named so I wouldn't know for sure. It seems to be a reference to the list of 50 'higher men' Nietzsche gave in, I think, Twilight of the Idols, so it isn't "really" necessary. It's good for an external link, though. --GoodIntentionstalk 02:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Word of advice on Neitzche battles
First of all: do not assume that anyone's interpretation is WRONG. This would be againts the fundamental spirit of Neitzcheian philosophy. Gather as many interpretatation as you can (if you go to a decent university library, you can find literally hundreds!!) without getting carried away. Noone really KNOWS what Neitzhe was trying to say: this again would violate the spirit of his philosophy. Just make sure that all interpreatations stay withing some general realm of plausibility and authorititaiveness (he WAS an atheist, for example) and document every sentence with reliable sources (even though most of them are wrong) --Francesco Franco 10:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- "document every sentence with reliable sources (even though most of them are wrong)" A most sensible thing to say --GoodIntentionstalk 01:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Antichrist
I deleted the quote from the Antichrist at the end of the article about the kind of being that a man might will mostly because, when Nietzsche wrote the AntiChrist, he had abandoned the overman in favor of free spirits. This free spirit is a man who can create at will. It is almost certainly free spirits he is refering to in the AntiChrist and not overman, and thus it has been improperly cited. --Lkak126 02:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
And where Nietzsche writed that he had abandoned the superman ? The free spirits are in Human, all too human : 1876... And does Nietzsche speak about eternal recurrence and will to power in Antechrist ? no, but he had not abandonned them. 86.209.207.214 07:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
He doesn't write it at all, he just abandones the way he had used it before. The way this article is written is horribly confused: it begins to make a point, and then undermines what it says mid-sentence. And what the heck is "news values?" Better that it not "exist" at all, anyone reading it will only be confused.--Lkak126 23:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
You would have to explain your view on this a bit more... he in no way abandoned the overman... it has a lot to do with freedom, it is still a theme in Ecce Homo. (Soyloquequieres 08:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC))
[edit] Cart firmly before the horse
From the article: "In Fyodor Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, the main character, Raskolnikov, considers himself to be an Übermensch of sorts, and brazenly commits an act of murder, feeling the normal rules of morality do not apply to him."
Nietzsche was an avid reader of Dostoevsky, whom he read in French translation. Dostoevsky presumably never so much as heard of Nietzsche. - Jmabel | Talk 05:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Roughly 3 days, no response, removing. If someone wants to add something well-cited about Dostoevsky's influence on Nietzsche as it relates to this concept, that would be a useful addition. - Jmabel | Talk 00:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Oh, I just saw this now. I'm the one who added the Crime and Punishment bit. I thought Dostoevsky was commenting on Nietzche with the book, but apparently not. A short web search turned up this, though, from Cliff's Notes: "Dostoevsky had also apparently encountered other views of the Superman or Ubermensch—views that were not yet formulated in any coherent whole but were heard wherever intellectuals gathered." [1] What do you think? Korny O'Near 16:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, the link I just found for Leopold and Loeb discusses Crime and Punishment too: "the idea did not actually originate with Nietzsche, as many imagine. He merely articulated something already in the air during the century in which he lived... [Dostoevsky] was responding to the intellectual idea that some people are above the social conventions of morality, grounded in the ideas about the hierarchy of masters and slaves proposed by philosopher Georg W. F. Hegel." [2] If it's true that it originated with Hegel, this seems important enough to include elsewhere in the article. Korny O'Near 16:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- The quotes you've given us just show a very particular understanding of Hegel, not to say a misunderstanding. To say that Hegel's dialectic of slave & master justify "the intellectual idea that some people are above the social conventions of morality" needs some sources and argumenting, as it is a most surprising reading of Hegel (who certainly didn't reinvidicate himself, as did Nietzsche, as an "immoralist"). Furthermore, although one can readily bet that Nietzsche has read Hegel (to which extent?) and has thus been "influenced" by him, this relationship is in no way a master-disciple one. Gilles Deleuze — who, you might point out, has been criticized on this point — claimed that Nietzsche's philosophy was primary an "anti-hegelianism" (see Deleuze, Nietzsche and philosophy). Kant & Schopenhauer are more obvious references for Nietzsche, but both were also strongly criticized (Kant for his conception of a "thing-in-itself" and Schopenhauer for his metaphysical conception of the will, as being single & united; whilst Nietzsche's will to power is complex, plural and not singular — and is neither a psychological faculty, nor a cosmogonic force). Lapaz 15:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I think the quote is making a reasonable point; I think you're misunderstanding it. The point is that Hegel simply came up with the idea that humanity has both a "slave consciousness" and a "master consciousness"; he didn't try to justify it, or argue that people should live their lives differently as a result of it: that was the work of later philosophers, including Nietzsche. Essentially he created the language that others used. Korny O'Near 18:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- The quotes you've given us just show a very particular understanding of Hegel, not to say a misunderstanding. To say that Hegel's dialectic of slave & master justify "the intellectual idea that some people are above the social conventions of morality" needs some sources and argumenting, as it is a most surprising reading of Hegel (who certainly didn't reinvidicate himself, as did Nietzsche, as an "immoralist"). Furthermore, although one can readily bet that Nietzsche has read Hegel (to which extent?) and has thus been "influenced" by him, this relationship is in no way a master-disciple one. Gilles Deleuze — who, you might point out, has been criticized on this point — claimed that Nietzsche's philosophy was primary an "anti-hegelianism" (see Deleuze, Nietzsche and philosophy). Kant & Schopenhauer are more obvious references for Nietzsche, but both were also strongly criticized (Kant for his conception of a "thing-in-itself" and Schopenhauer for his metaphysical conception of the will, as being single & united; whilst Nietzsche's will to power is complex, plural and not singular — and is neither a psychological faculty, nor a cosmogonic force). Lapaz 15:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, the link I just found for Leopold and Loeb discusses Crime and Punishment too: "the idea did not actually originate with Nietzsche, as many imagine. He merely articulated something already in the air during the century in which he lived... [Dostoevsky] was responding to the intellectual idea that some people are above the social conventions of morality, grounded in the ideas about the hierarchy of masters and slaves proposed by philosopher Georg W. F. Hegel." [2] If it's true that it originated with Hegel, this seems important enough to include elsewhere in the article. Korny O'Near 16:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, I just saw this now. I'm the one who added the Crime and Punishment bit. I thought Dostoevsky was commenting on Nietzche with the book, but apparently not. A short web search turned up this, though, from Cliff's Notes: "Dostoevsky had also apparently encountered other views of the Superman or Ubermensch—views that were not yet formulated in any coherent whole but were heard wherever intellectuals gathered." [1] What do you think? Korny O'Near 16:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Translating übermensch
I think übermensch should be translated to "transhuman". I'm Swedish and in Swedish, the word for "human being" is not the same word as "man", but människa. The German word mensch is an equivalent of that word. If I was to translate människa into English as literally as possible, I would not say "man" but "human being". Given the explanation of über, I would say that "trans-" is the best prefix. (The Swedish word över is equivalent to the German über by the way). Hence, "transhuman" would be the translation that best fits the description given in this article of the word übermensch. A transhuman would be a person who transcends ordinary humanity and becomes something greater than man. I'm in no way an expert on Nietzsche but because German and Swedish are identical in this respect I think I am fully qualified to give this opinion. However, I do not know if any English translator has proposed the word transhuman. I don't want to edit the article since I don't know very much about Nietzsche but someone less ignorant than me on the issue should add transhuman as a possible translation. /Benzocaine 23:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Note: The word "übermenschlich" also has a Swedish equivalent, "övermänsklig", which in my dictionary is translated as "superhuman". This suggests that "human" is a better translation than "man". Also, in Swedish, the word "människa" is totally neutral. We have four genders for nouns: male, female and two neutral ones. "Människa" is one of the neutrals. Thus, even though the German word "mensch" is grammatically male, it should in my opinion be regarded as completely neutral and not only "less specifically male than the English 'man'". It is no more male than e.g. lion, which is also grammatically male in German (der Löwe) without implying that a lioness is of male gender. And yes, I do speak a little German so it's not only my native language that makes me want to translate "übermensch" as transhuman. /Benzocaine 23:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that "transhuman" might be a good translation. It is a word that is commonly used nowadays in the various futurist movements, as is "posthuman".Shibidee 17:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The word transhuman is increasingly common today, but is a poor translation of übermensch. It tends to suggest something that is biologically beyond the human. Clearly, that is not Nietzsche's meaning. However, I agree that "human" rather than "man" is more to the point. - Jmabel | Talk 06:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, the term overman is perfect. The idea of self overcoming would be lost if it translated as human. Human has a more removed connotation and this subject is far from removed.(Soyloquequieres 08:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC))
- Nietzsche's Menschliches, Allzumenschliches is routinely translated as Human, All Too Human. - Jmabel | Talk 01:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Magneto?
The Magneto reference at the end seems to based on a complete misunderstanding of Uebermensch. Superpowers have nothing to do with it. As I understand it, XMen actually intends Magneto's philosiphy to resemble Malcolm X (with Dr X as MLK) and not Nietzsche. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.40.17.240 (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
