Daydreamer

I've been reading a bit of Nietzeche lately, and I think I may have figured out where his Uber-Mensch theory went awry (This is a slightly less philosophical and more sociohistoric take on his work):

Before the time of his writing, he said European society had been centered on the Judeo-Christian god in a sort of hub like pattern. Each branch of society, from the masses to the government, to the clergy, had a different use for god (to worship, to unify the masses, and to work for, respectively), and through god the society was keep unified.

Then, in the mid-to-late 19th century, advancement of science, secularization of government, and the industrial revolution "killed god", and removed religion from the center of society.

This lead, according to Nietzsche, to the nihilism and disorder that he saw in his own time. He thought that the only way balance could be restored would be to put some new unifying force in the center - the Uber-mensch.

This is where I htink he got things wrong - although he carefully deconstructed Christianity's ability to hold center stage in The Antichrist, I haven't read much by him in the way of deconstructing the ability of other entities to be King-Of-The-Hill. I think he chose the wrong entity to crown King.

Take a look at the last century - who is on top? America, Western Europe, and the Asian Tigers (Japan, China, Korea, Taiwan). Why? Because they have two things - a very strong (and almost universally democratic) government and a strong economy. The new Kingship, it seems to me, is split between government and economy.(1)

So do I have things aright, or should I go back and hit The Will To Power again?

Footnote 1: Consequently, the Eighties and early Nineties in America make a rather large amount of sense in this model - they were a short period where the economy got ahead of government in their private ratrace for Kingship.

phaedrus

This is where I htink he got things wrong - although he carefully deconstructed Christianity's ability to hold center stage in The Antichrist, I haven't read much by him in the way of deconstructing the ability of other entities to be King-Of-The-Hill. I think he chose the wrong entity to crown King.

Which entity did he crown king and which entities did he fail to deconstruct that could have been the superior forces ????

btw ..... Übermensch (the term was used by goethe as well)is a super human who justifies the existence of human race since he is able to master himself and is able to create his own values which are based on his life on this planet rather than the herd christian morality

Daydreamer

The Uber-Mensch, and Government/Economy, respectively (see below). And I didn't mean 'king' in the literal sense, I meant it as an honorary title to whoever or whatever guides and controls things in CHristianity's stead.

Exactly - he had the Uber-Mensch and the Uber-Mensch's morality become the 'king' that determines/guides/holds together the society he is in. I think history shows that this view is incorrect, that instead its a combination of the government and the economy that dictate and guide these things.

boneyard bill

This amounts to claiming that a strong, secular government constitutes the Ubermensch. It is true that capitalist economics has won out over the totalitarian regimes in the 20th Century. But free-market capitalism is merely tolerated by the state as a more efficient system and therefore one that enhances the power of government world-wide. In fact, the market is only "free" in a relative sense in all of the countries you mentioned. The new Ubermensch, on your line of thinking is strong, secular state. But what values does that state impose? That is very much the subject of debate in the modern world and one of the reasons why traditionally quiescent religious groups have become politically active. Apart from obedience and patriotism, the state doesn't really have any values to impose.

Daydreamer

Boneyard Bill,

I hate to sound pedantic, but isn't this lack of moral guiding their guiding morality? Isn't secular government, as a whole, based on the philosophy that people should be able to choose their religion/sexual orientation/etc.?

boneyard bill

Daydreamer writes:

Perhaps. But I don't think that what Nietszche was talking about. In fact, Neitszche despised popular culture and looked to the Ubermensch to impose some meaningful values on the people in place of a banal hedonism.

[ April 26, 2002: Message edited by: boneyard bill ]</p>

Daydreamer

I agree that Nietzsche was most certainly refering to actual people, hence why I say he was 'close' by not quote on the mark.

I also agree with your view of pop culture - Nietzsche would have hated it. I do however think that this secular morality of freedom and choice is a meaningful value placed on us by our guiding hand - it just happens to be a non-personal hand.

boneyard bill

Daydreamer:

Are you claiming then, that banal hedonism is the proper morality that the Ubermencsh ought to impose upon the people?

Daydreamer

HA! Straw-man.

No, I don't, but our society and government don't force banal hedonism on us, it is merely there for us to take or ignore at will.

As much as I would prefer expunging Total Request Live or what not in favor of Total Request Philosophy, I far prefer giving people a chance to waste their time and energy to forcing intellectual discourse. Our government acts as Nietzsche's ubermensch only to the extent that, through the Bill of Rights, it hands us this freedom on a platter just as he wanted an ubermensch to hand Truth to his people in the same manner.

boneyard bill

Daydreamer writes:

But what does the modern secular state have to offer except for banal hedonism? I suppose it also leaves open the option of a sophisticated hedonism. But to be an Ubermensch it must impose values on the people, and while it might do that, it is certainly not part of our conception of what the modern state ought to be doing. Therefore I don't see how it qualifies as a candidate for Nietzsche's Ubermensch. Once the modern state has done what it is supposed to do, the question of personal values and worth remain quite unanswered. Indeed, it remains the responsibility of the people to tell the state even what the states' values and ambitions ought to be. I'm not objecting to this. I'm just saying I don't think that's anything close to the Ubermensch.