Started listening to random episodes of this podcast thinking that it would be good to fall asleep to... I was wrong. While Keegan has a pleasing voice and tone, I find that the content is too interesting and thought provoking. It's not the kind of thing that you shut your brain off and listen to, quite the contrary. Many thanks for all the effort you put into this project, it might not be the most popular podcast but it is way more valuable than those are and is a great resource for anyone looking to learn more about themselves and the world around them.
@@omkarbhausahebchattar5407that’s the most ‘annoying’ part of his podcast; it’s impossible to just listen without sitting up right, taking a notebook or some paper and take notes on the topics. None have caused me to stay up late as much as Keegan has.
Superb, thank you. I am writing a novel about Gabriele d'Annunzio, a man who strove to be an Overman - not always successfully, of course, but at least he tried valiantly. As did Nietzsche himself.
I've always struggled with zarathustra since my early journey in philosophy. Few days ago I had a out of body/in the body experience... And again I revisited zarathustra after that. Never it felt so simple... So Easy... So elegant
The overman and eternal return go hand in hand, if you take the overman literally then it doesn’t make sense, but if you take the overman ideal as a way to life your life so you can create a life that you would live eternally, that is the combination of those 2 ideas in conjunction. In essence it is still another gloss on how to live life. But we need glosses, we need the potential.
Another interesting podcast. Nietzsche announces the overman in the context of human evolution: as something that is equidistant as what separates us from the ape. Yet there can be no genealogy of the overman. The overman cannot be accounted for through mutation. The overman separates himself from the herd. This can only be accounted for in the alterity of the will and self-overcoming. The gravity of the "it was" is affirmed which breaks the chain of resentment. The going-over of the overman, his elevation infinitely recedes as an ideal yet his condition of possibility exists in his overabundance and not his reason.
Found this channel a few weeks ago, great content. On my second reading of thus Spoke Zarathustra (first book I picked up - will just call it TSZ), and reading concurrently beyond good and evil (BGE)... Interesting thoughts... In TSZ, there is a few lines where he states that - if there be more, I'm sure I missed them - one of his highest hopes was that 'you would be liberated from revenge'... He also speaks about the creation, and or re-creation of new values, of being a self-propelled spinning wheel of Value creation... In Truth, these statements are valid, the goal is valid, and the outcome is true. Meaning: the recreation of new values lies in the devaluation, or 'taking the investment away from' other values... From a spiritual perspective, forgiveness - as the act itself, and as the journey foward through time - is the practice which achieves this ability... But it would mean that one would be willing to face 'their desire for, or against, or any desire thereof', that is invested in the value in question... To challenge the abyss, and look it squarely in the face... For however long it requires, until the work is done... It is through desire that a value is invested in... It is through desire that perception, is... Therefore, to perceive differently, is to release the desire for, or against, the value in question... That release is 'forgiveness'... An entirely secular argument can be made for forgiveness - not a single spiritual element need be added to the equation (albeit, I am very much a seeker, myself...) With good will in mind.
Loved the episode! I noticed a couple things near the end that stood out. The conflation of acceleration and speed might be a problem in analyzing the relationship between time points. Acceleration is any change at all, positive OR negative, in velocity (speed x direction), not speed itself: it a gradient transition between speeds and directions. When Nietsche talks about the "greatest acceleration", calling it "infinite speed" both mistakes acceleration for one of its components, and runs into the problem of treating infinity as a concrete number that is "greater" than any other number. Because it seemed like Nitezsche may have been getting at the smooth, nonquantized nature of the world as will to power, maybe this could indicate an instantaneous change rather than any transition: a greatest negative acceleration, to functionally equate the infinitessimal and zero, that there is no acceleration at all of or between times, but rather nontransitional change at the lowest level. I like it for quantum teleportation and foam, but your show has me suspicious about quanta at all at this point. Maybe these stricter definitions of acceleration and speed aren't what you two or Nietzsche were looking at, but it's a conflation I see a lot that tends to be problematic in ironing things out. Sorry if I'm totally off-base here.
Haven't listened yet, eager to, but I just felt like laying down two understandings of the overman I feel are sorely lacking in the Nietzschean communities I see, e.g., on Facebook: that the overman is at once a philosophy of ever-ascending transgenerational parenting (cf. "On Child and Marriage"), and an "immanent dystelos" to replace the transcendent telos of what the crucifix symbolizes. All I see are people parroting the Petersonian bastardization that one's conscious ego ought to causally conjure up new values out of thin air, as though there is a unified unchanging ego, as though this "weakest organ" has that kind of causal power, as though Nietzsche was just some type of relativistic rugged individualist and not a "physican of culture", psychologist and axiological aristocrat, as though Dionysian affirmation and the health―decadence axiology are just as good as any values, and, finally, as though there are moral oughts good for everyone... The revaluation of life over truth that undergirds everything isn't a relativistic project at all, it might just require a certain type of will. Ok enough blabbering, let's watch this video! I don't expect to be disappointed, I'm loving all your content so far, thank you!
Regarding the question of free will in the context of Amore Fati / eternal recurrence: The human perspective of space-time is weirdly blinkered; we see the merest iota of the universe, through a tiny, tiny peephole that WILL NOT SIT STILL in the direction of time, and refuses to turn back on that axis, ever. This condition of ours can be likened to a reader in a library; the reader is surrounded by tens of thousands of books, but can only perceive the contents of the book in his hands, and only a word at a time. He cannot go back and read again, and must rely on his memory of what he has read if he wishes to linger on it. The entirety of the book in the reader's hands exists, not just the word he is reading at a given moment, nor the page upon which that word is printed. All the books in the library exist, with all their contents intact, despite most of them being forever outside the reader's experience. This library is the universe seen from a four-dimensional perspective; at one end of its time axis is the Big Bang; at the other the Big Crunch or the eventual heat death of the universe, or. . . whatever it's going to be. We're all embedded in this four-dimensional object; our bodies are worms that wind and grow fatter, then thinner through our travels, from mother's womb to the tomb. Our minds and senses are too limited to view the universe this way except as a thought experiment; instead, our consciousness travels along these worms that are our four-dimensional bodies, in the direction of the time axis. It all exists, all at once. . . so it's set in stone, unalterable, everything that has ever existed embedded in the amber of space-time, as eternal as anything can be. It's easy to mistake this for a situation in which our consciousnesses are propelled along a channel made of moments that we cannot escape, that we did not make, toward an inescapable fate that by extension is also not of our making. The time axis and the movement of consciousness along it is real, though. . . so although from a four-dimensional perspective everything is changelessly set in stone, we are intrinsically part of the universe, and our conscious free will has shaped / is shaping / will shape it. Our choices are baked into our local bit of the space-time continuum. We're not confined to a track; the track runs more or less where we will decide / are deciding /have decided it should run. To insist that this isn't free will because it's unchangeable is absurd; it amounts to complaining that you can't make your decisions more than once. You have made all of your decisions, from a four-dimensional perspective. . . but YOU MADE THEM; they did not make you. Those decisions are inseparable from your course through the four-dimensional world.
00:41 🧬 Nietzsche aimed to craft a new religion, the Dionysian religion, as part of his revaluation of old metaphysics and morality, with the Overman as its central figure. 01:49 🤔 Nietzsche initially introduces the concept of the Overman early in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra," but it is met with rejection and misunderstanding, similar to how many intellectuals today may misunderstand it. 03:27 🧩 Nietzsche's writings often have both esoteric and exoteric meanings, aiming to convey ideas that can be comprehended intuitively even by those with no philosophical background. 07:23 💪 "Overman" is a better translation than "Superman" for "Übermensch" because it expresses the idea of overcoming humanity and being beyond mankind. 08:46 🚀 The Overman is a potential and infinite concept, always beyond the current state of humanity, representing what humanity can aspire to become. 10:34 🌍 The Overman is not a historical or racial concept; it's always discussed in the singular as an individual who represents the infinite potential for human growth. 12:08 🌟 Nietzsche believes that it's through the rarest individuals among humanity that life can be justified, elevated, or redeemed. 14:39 🌟 Nietzsche acknowledges that historical figures, no matter how great, are still "all too human" and cannot be called Overmen, but they serve as premonitions or flashes of the Overman's potential. 17:27 🌟 Nietzsche views the death of God as an opportunity and a challenge for humanity to find a new eternal value to replace the old religious beliefs. 19:42 🌟 Nietzsche encourages individuals to recreate themselves and their values, striving to become the forefathers of the Overman and embracing the challenge of bringing forth a new ideal. 20:52 🚀 Nietzsche finds meaning in exploration and self-mastery, focusing on the ideal beyond our current state of being. 22:56 🔄 Nietzsche's ideal, the Overman, embraces transformation and becoming, not a return to stasis or original contentment. 23:39 🌟 Understanding ourselves as dynamic beings, we should strive to bring forth what is better than our current state. 25:03 💡 Nietzsche rejects assessing life solely based on suffering, emphasizing the importance of creating something beyond oneself. 29:17 🌄 Nietzsche encourages the idea of "going under" to make way for something greater, like the Overman. 36:50 🌎 Nietzsche urges remaining faithful to the Earth and rejecting otherworldly hopes and contempt for the body. 41:03 🤔 The greatest experience is the "hour of great contempt," where even one's happiness can arouse disgust, challenging the idea of measuring existence by happiness alone. 41:46 🌟 Nietzsche discusses the concept of "great contempt" as a necessary first stage in personal transformation, where one must part with the happiness that comes from staying in the familiar and easy. 43:20 💭 Nietzsche challenges the alignment of reason with life and questions whether reason serves life, emphasizing the importance of aligning one's will to truth with one's will to power. 44:18 🚀 To truly transform and become an overman, one must be willing to part with their current character, assumptions, moral ideas, and even pity for humanity. Man is something to be overcome. 48:01 ⚡ Nietzsche encourages living powerfully and dangerously, giving oneself entirely to a value or ideal, even if it leads to one's downfall, as this is the path to meaningful life. 59:06 📉 Nietzsche introduces the concept of the "last man" who represents the opposite direction for mankind, characterized by weakness, atrophy, and a focus on preserving comfort and bland contentment. 01:02:24 🌍 Nietzsche's concept of the "last man" symbolizes a life focused solely on self-preservation, leading to a small and unfulfilling existence. 01:04:43 🔄 The last man's perspective suggests that all of history was morally inferior until recent times, overlooking hierarchies and valuing the collective over individual exceptionalism. 01:07:02 📊 Nietzsche critiques utilitarianism for equating inherently unequal experiences and reducing all lives and forms of happiness to a single standard. 01:09:22 🤡 Nietzsche's teaching aims to challenge societal norms and inspire individuals to embrace danger, risk, and their unique calling or vocation in life. 01:12:37 🚶♂ The tightrope walker allegory illustrates the importance of not trying to skip steps in life's journey and embracing the process of becoming the overman gradually. 01:15:08 🤝 Embracing danger as one's vocation and being willing to perish in the pursuit of a greater purpose is essential according to Nietzsche's philosophy.
I've heard somewhere, perhaps you have said that Freud said, knee chair (voice-to-text lol) was the most self-aware man he knew. Rick Roderick talked about it in the man under siege UA-cam episode mocking people health obsessed and supplement obsessed and running on treadmills just so they could live longer where he was talking about Heidegger who said the similar thing as knee chair did and that is how we go towards that or tumble towards death that is more important than how long we live. Something like that.
Whats more noble way then fighting the greatest force there is.... Just like the health and supplement ppl the UA-cam "cool" guy is making fun of lololol. 🤡
14:50 cultures that produce a great number of great individuals provide a blue-print of the ideal. Of what should we make of the culture that produced the tora?
of what do we make of the culture that produced Trump? Should we perhaps not be concerned with the quantity of great individuals but also the quality? which begs the question, 'if mankind requires a common value for mankind to become comprehendible to man' (Camus), what should it be? And thereby how do we judge, perhaps measure, the greatness of an individual?
Truth saves lives, lying also saves lives. Is there any difference between these two lives? Does the value depend on it's background? Which is more important saving lives or telling the truth?
34:10 'much of us is still worm: less ape than any ape' you were curious as to other interpretations: my interpretation is that much of us is still worm, it wriggles and writhes in protest to the most basic discomforts. Worms are highly sensitive to light: they reflexively recoil then instinctually, habitually and seemingly compulsively burry their heads in the dirt as do humans when confronted with enlightenment. We are less ape than any ape because we allow ourselves to 'feel' less, the ape by contrast is more noble; the ape by contrast is unafraid to feel. yes indeed: if you are not an overman you are likely an idiot of human experience: you dont feel (you writhe in protest in response to the most subtle discomforts) or you are afraid to feel (a timid ape). Even the 'wisest' among us are analogous to 'ghosts and a plants' because they have prejudice's towards the body and the energy economy that is emotion: they dont feel and seemingly never grow beyond the perspective of a plant among trees (perhaps they were malnourished thus they couldn't reach past the canopy). These wise men are like ghosts because they say one thing and do another: imitation is empty likewise is hypocracy (think of the people who claim that there is no such thing as free will: everything is cliché to them).
what is this bridge to the overman? to become more ape than an ape we must do what: trust our bodies? Is this tightrope we traverse a metaphor representing the bond we share with the body, and the great fall a degeneration and distancing from the ideal (a numbness or desire to be numb)?
While these all qualify as great individuals or higher men (excluding, possibly, Jesus), remember Zarathustra’s saying that he looked into the highest man and the lowest, and found them all, “human, all too human”. The term Ubermensch is never directly applied to any of the figures you mention in his written work, and while some such as Kaufmann think that it could be applied, I think the Ubermensch collapses as a concept once it starts being applied to individual, living human beings - because then it can no longer replace the idea of God. It ceases to be an infinite concept and becomes finite.
Nietzsche was not an atheist. He called himself an "Honest Pagan". Nietzsche inverted all concepts, philosophies, and religious concepts to hold up the other end of the Rorschach test. To create a mirror of the reality (The lie) we made. Anyone quoting Nietzsche does not seem to understand that the quote says more about themselves than it says about Nietzsche.
I think that your interpretation of the Last Man as being the ultimate utilitarian isn't wrong, but doesn't dig deep enough. It could be said that the Last Man's utilitarianism is merely surface level with no substance behind it, otherwise most people would have an ethics such as Peter Singer's (which in his virtue is pretty consistent with his ethical philosophy despite having disdain for utilitarianism myself). The Last Man is merely a being that exists for the sake of existing, no higher goal or virtue beyond what is expected of him or beyond his immediate need or wants. He is a vulgar hedonist and a person with no guiding principle in life, a passive nihilist at heart, and only concerned with his contentment. The Last Man is the ultimate herd animal.
The Last Man: When is it time to leave a place of comfort?? Or should man never have allowed himself to BE in a place of comfort?? Is confort relative as per your example of the greeks going through their Spartan manhood rite of passage and thus, some pain?? You become wishy washy when saying modern man you "know" arre NOT all living in comfort, but you know better speedily compared to the old spartans. Isn't comfort the inevitable result of all that effort and sacrifice?? Or is he asking for movement "forward" as soon as you feel comfortable and safe, an eternal battle, as a way of life itself?? Where is the man that never rests?? Isn't also this related to the idea Nietzsche gave us that now we all survive, the weak are not allowed to die, the deficient not allowed to lovingly let go?? These are the parts that, THOUGH TRUE, the germans of last century loved for their final solutions, ignoring most of the rest Nietzsche said, where he didn't identify a specific race for this overman goal??
Your podcasts have helped me see resentment as the greatest driver of human misery on earth. That it's self inflicted and utterly futile and poisonous to the well being of both the self and those it's directed at. It's hard to understand how Nietzsche missed it in himself. Let me explain: I've now listened to all of your Nietzsche podcasts. Most of them twice. They are deep, complex, well organized and outstanding. I feel like I have at least a basic grasp of Nietzsche's philosophical project and what lead to it. The central negative quality underlying human morality appears to be resentment to Nietzsche. The remedy to this is "Amore Fate" to embrace one's fate no mater how seemingly unjust or tragic because we all serve the becoming of the Overman, and have no choice anyway. Free will is illusory. Fate governs all. But there are contradictions that trouble me here. Not enough to dismiss Nietzche's insights into human nature and conciousness or his critiques of social structures, religion, philosophies and their moral underpinnings. But contradictions which call into question his remedy: It seems clear that Nietzsche views resentment as bad in and of itself. I suspect that this derives from Nietzsche's love of classical antiquity and what he saw as it's decline through decadance. Especially the slave uprising of Christianty which was it's death knell. In short, Nietzsche's philosophy was itself driven by resentment. Resentment that the Lowerman had gained the upper hand, and had destroyed what was best, most beautiful and highest in mankind. His resentment is incoherent given his very own philosophy however. If all is fated, there is no point in resenting anything. Quite the opposite. Amore Fate, right? The Overman is no better - or worse - than the Lowerman. We have no choice or agency in the matter. Celebrating or resenting the coming / overcoming of either is pointless. Accepting both without predudice or judgement is more logical and productive to well being, and ironically, human progress. What he got right in my estimation was to strive towards embracing your nature and circumstances rather than resenting them, or anything else. In short, the Overman and Lowerman are spurious artifacts of the primitive dichotomous reasoning system Nietzsche employed to dissect reality. Philosophising with a hammer? More like brain surgery with a chainsaw. But I suppose it was the best tool availible at the time.
@@untimelyreflections The Roman Catholic Church has made many claims which are contradicted in its actual practices in comparison to the recorded teachings of Jesus. Unfortunately for the world, Catholicism has impressed a reputation upon other Christians. After deep study of the written teachings of Jesus, I understand his criticism of self-appointed religious authorities. I believe that we must give recognition to Christians who have grown much in spirituality and intellectual power, while their compassion and contentment have strengthened
I've tried responding to this a few times, and I can't seem to nail down my disagreements quite how I want to which is rapidly getting my goat the more I rewrite my response, so I'm going to spew up what I can. "38. My conception of freedom. - The value of a thing sometimes does not lie in that which one attains by it, but in what one pays for it - what it costs us. I shall give an example. Liberal institutions cease to be liberal as soon as they are attained: later on, there are no worse and no more thorough injurers of freedom than liberal institutions. Their effects are known well enough: they undermine the will to power; they level mountain and valley, and call that morality; they make men small, cowardly, and hedonistic - every time it is the herd animal that triumphs with them. Liberalism: in other words, herd-animalization." Everything you posted sounds to me very resigned. It sounds accepting and tolerant. It sounds wide minded and it sounds exactly like what he criticizes in philistines, Christians, and Buddhists. What does he go on to say? "Freedom means that the manly instincts which delight in war and victory dominate over other instincts, for example, over those of “pleasure.” The human being who has become free - and how much more the spirit who has become free - spits on the contemptible type of well-being dreamed of by shopkeepers, Christians, cows, females, Englishmen, and other democrats. The free man is a warrior." I've had trouble responding to your comment precisely for the above reason. I hold it in contempt. Should an Irishmen denounce rising of 1916 since they resented English rule? Should the Poles have been denounced for holding their occupiers in contempt? The French? The roots of life are morally dubious! And if Nietzsche was nothing else, he was a philosopher of life. You are making one of his observations into an axiom about his philosophy and molding the rest to fit. One thing about this channel I am suspicious of is this whole "Nietzschean morality" or "Nietzschean ethics" thing I've been hearing. I'm interested in the thoughts, but I don't think for a second this "great immoralist" was meaning for anything than that men send their ships into unexplored seas and build their homes on the slopes of Vesuvius and took violent imagery to impel men's spirits back to a sense of health.
@@conatus1306 I'm not really sure what your criticism is aimed at - my critique of Nietzche's critique of Christianity and slave moraity via resentment as hypocritical / blind to his on resentment, or if it's a wider critique of Keegan's (Absolutely outstandng IMO) presentation of the Nietzche's entire philosophical project, it's antecedants, and it's profound imapact on modernity via this channel as a body of work. Resentment is bad from Nietzsche's standpoint because fate determines everything. We don't have free will in his conception of reality, so resenting injustice is worse than pointless - it's a rejection of his central thesis about the nature of reality as governed by fate rather than free will. His position (as I understand it) is that free will is an illusion. We have no choice - The British were fated to screw the Irish. The Irish were fated to get screwed. Blaming and resenting the British doesn't change that. Now if you're really clever, you'll see a contradiction here. The Irish resented the British, right? ...and everything is governed by fate accordingto Nietzche, right? Therfore, the Irish were fated to resent the British, and had no choice, making resentment itself niether good nor bad! ...and so it goes with all philosophical systems. ALL of them. Even supposedly objective systems of knowledge like mathmatics are riddled with logical contradictions my freind. Even basic arithmetic: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems So again, I'm not sure what you're questioning here. I'm questioning human systems of logic as means of knowing anything with certainty by pointing out the inherent incoherence of logic itself....
Germany was divided for centuries. Centuries of inner tribal wars and religious conflicts did not produce a nation.. neitzeche l think admired greek culture as a antidote to the problem.
okay but what actually is the overman? why should we take pride and draw meaning from bringing "overman" about? especially when the overman is just another thing to be overcome.
I recently read that the term “Übermensch” was derived from a Greek term “hyperanthropos”. That suggests a different interpretation, it seems to me. The “overman” would be an “epianthropos”-a being above or beyond the current human. “Hyper” suggests more an “extreme” human-someone whose human potential is maximally realized. In that sense, Goethe would seem like a good prototype. Christianity (ironically) has its own version of the Übermensch in the person of Jesus, who is referred to not only as the Son of God, but also as the Son of MAN. This also reminds me of the passage in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance where Pirsig describes the many ways in which Odysseus embodies “arete” (I was going to quote it, but this is already long).
Removal of consequence and proof by ability. The rise of Convenience, Safety and Commodification. Gives us the hubrisian dialectical of nothingness that leads to a neo colonosation of the mental state, as the now overriding power structure.
God, or the concept of a powerful outside force that is on your side, is a very powerful thing. Albeit, even if it only exist in your own mind. Yet this force you believe in causes you to do things. God is therfore, in the mind of those who believe, thier super ego. If the belief, programming, is great, then this can cause you to have God, literally, existing in you. As a new personality that I like to call, the Super Duper Ego. Religious people of different faiths all claim to be able to communicate with thier respective Gods. Either they are all right or they are communicating with this Super Duper Ego. Without a belief in God, we by nature assume his role as God of our own lives. Our Super ego loses the battle to the ID, as we make crappy gods and become pleasure principled people. This lack of belief in God would be on a bell curve, just as people who believe, will believe to different degrees and also fall on a curve. The agnostic gets the best of both worlds. Just by saying, I don't know. The Ubermensch will envitably go nuts, as he can't deal with his upbringing. Too many error messages as you introduce new programming. It's a paradox.
If there is no "recipe" or guide for THE overman, can it be that the overman is geological, made out of the necessities of life in any one region and climate, several kinds of overman?? just as geography created different moralities, so does it creates different overmen that create their own values according to PLACE of living, by the local necessities of life. But a religion or morality is the only way to pass this AIM on to the broader humanity; it seems a contradiction but it is not: the eternal return. People need gods or higher ups to give them orders, a code, and once enforced, that automatically creates a higher sort of man if the person's character allowed it, under that code and region...??
What's your thoughts on Nietzsche and Jung being a modern older evil brother, younger, good brother motif. Like Cain and Abel or Loki Thor etc. And if you're familiar with the motif, what do you believe the psychological significance of this is? That is to say, can we reduce this to a concept of phenomena that explains some mechanism regarding the transformation of consciousness or even the collective psyche, the same way we would explain edipus complex in real life terms. Symbolically, I believe It can be understood quite easily, but are there real-life dramas that explain its recurrence as a symbol. Hope that made sense.
Let it be so that the sins of the Father be but a merely laugh-stock unto the Son! Not, however, out of shame or embarrassment that his Father sinned at all, but precisely because He sinned - His sins! - O' Laugh! - My Son! - O' Let it be! - That thou see: - O' mine irony! - O' mine comedy! - Hither contiained... within! - For hither is my tragedy! - O' Hither is my sin! ~ Havre Chithra
O' my Zarathustra, you sat upon thy great mountain and with thy eagle. O' my Zarathustra, you sat down in thy cave, with thy lonely lion, thy serpent and thy virgos volutarium! - For this, I ask you: Supposing truth to be a woman - what? .... what then about YOUR WOMAN? What then has any of this here, up on your mountain and in your cavus virgos, served to bring forth YOUR OVERMAN? O' my Zarathustra, could this have been your truth...? perhaps, even YOUR IRONY...? ... That you spoke still only of THE OVERMAN and never about that which may be first and most immediately your own...? ... and for this... YOUR children were in fact... never truly Nigh! O' my Zarathustra, your Spirit however doth live on with me - for thee, I do not pity; and so I now carry forth your flame! O' my Zarathustra, in your fire hath I been baptized... with it will I also baptize MY OVERMAN, so that one day HE may also bring about HIS. O' my Zarathustra, doest thou not recognize me yet? 'Tis I, Havre Chithra: Your Sun-Faced One! With your flame, Father, I add to 'Our Sacred Fire' - Ahura Mazda. - From thus do I overflow: baptizing with thy fertile ashes and burning tongues which lash and rain.... so that one this fire may not simply BE, sustained within me, but to go and grow on.... and continuously be-come- nay overco-... -me... and itself! ~ Havre Chithra
Started listening to random episodes of this podcast thinking that it would be good to fall asleep to... I was wrong. While Keegan has a pleasing voice and tone, I find that the content is too interesting and thought provoking. It's not the kind of thing that you shut your brain off and listen to, quite the contrary. Many thanks for all the effort you put into this project, it might not be the most popular podcast but it is way more valuable than those are and is a great resource for anyone looking to learn more about themselves and the world around them.
Same... Wanted to fall asleep ended up staying up and writing notes
@@omkarbhausahebchattar5407that’s the most ‘annoying’ part of his podcast; it’s impossible to just listen without sitting up right, taking a notebook or some paper and take notes on the topics. None have caused me to stay up late as much as Keegan has.
*Episodes like these are why I'm proud to be a Patreon. Based Nietzsche*
Thank you for this video,appreciate it, please keep them coming fella....
Indeed 👍🏻👍🏻
Thankyou so much, I listen to your commentaries all day when working ...so greatful, never gets boring always fascinating! 😇
Superb, thank you. I am writing a novel about Gabriele d'Annunzio, a man who strove to be an Overman - not always successfully, of course, but at least he tried valiantly. As did Nietzsche himself.
You get nietzsche wrong, rewatch his entire podcast again 😂
I've always struggled with zarathustra since my early journey in philosophy. Few days ago I had a out of body/in the body experience... And again I revisited zarathustra after that. Never it felt so simple... So Easy... So elegant
The overman and eternal return go hand in hand, if you take the overman literally then it doesn’t make sense, but if you take the overman ideal as a way to life your life so you can create a life that you would live eternally, that is the combination of those 2 ideas in conjunction. In essence it is still another gloss on how to live life. But we need glosses, we need the potential.
So glad I found this podcast
Another interesting podcast. Nietzsche announces the overman in the context of human evolution: as something that is equidistant as what separates us from the ape. Yet there can be no genealogy of the overman. The overman cannot be accounted for through mutation. The overman separates himself from the herd. This can only be accounted for in the alterity of the will and self-overcoming. The gravity of the "it was" is affirmed which breaks the chain of resentment. The going-over of the overman, his elevation infinitely recedes as an ideal yet his condition of possibility exists in his overabundance and not his reason.
Found this channel a few weeks ago, great content.
On my second reading of thus Spoke Zarathustra (first book I picked up - will just call it TSZ), and reading concurrently beyond good and evil (BGE)...
Interesting thoughts...
In TSZ, there is a few lines where he states that - if there be more, I'm sure I missed them - one of his highest hopes was that 'you would be liberated from revenge'...
He also speaks about the creation, and or re-creation of new values, of being a self-propelled spinning wheel of Value creation...
In Truth, these statements are valid, the goal is valid, and the outcome is true.
Meaning: the recreation of new values lies in the devaluation, or 'taking the investment away from' other values...
From a spiritual perspective, forgiveness - as the act itself, and as the journey foward through time - is the practice which achieves this ability...
But it would mean that one would be willing to face 'their desire for, or against, or any desire thereof', that is invested in the value in question...
To challenge the abyss, and look it squarely in the face... For however long it requires, until the work is done...
It is through desire that a value is invested in...
It is through desire that perception, is...
Therefore, to perceive differently, is to release the desire for, or against, the value in question...
That release is 'forgiveness'...
An entirely secular argument can be made for forgiveness - not a single spiritual element need be added to the equation (albeit, I am very much a seeker, myself...)
With good will in mind.
Thanks for these talks! Keep it up.
Thank you for sharing your time and giving insight.
Loved the episode! I noticed a couple things near the end that stood out. The conflation of acceleration and speed might be a problem in analyzing the relationship between time points. Acceleration is any change at all, positive OR negative, in velocity (speed x direction), not speed itself: it a gradient transition between speeds and directions. When Nietsche talks about the "greatest acceleration", calling it "infinite speed" both mistakes acceleration for one of its components, and runs into the problem of treating infinity as a concrete number that is "greater" than any other number. Because it seemed like Nitezsche may have been getting at the smooth, nonquantized nature of the world as will to power, maybe this could indicate an instantaneous change rather than any transition: a greatest negative acceleration, to functionally equate the infinitessimal and zero, that there is no acceleration at all of or between times, but rather nontransitional change at the lowest level. I like it for quantum teleportation and foam, but your show has me suspicious about quanta at all at this point.
Maybe these stricter definitions of acceleration and speed aren't what you two or Nietzsche were looking at, but it's a conflation I see a lot that tends to be problematic in ironing things out. Sorry if I'm totally off-base here.
Thank you for this! I subscribed. This is so good
Haven't listened yet, eager to, but I just felt like laying down two understandings of the overman I feel are sorely lacking in the Nietzschean communities I see, e.g., on Facebook: that the overman is at once a philosophy of ever-ascending transgenerational parenting (cf. "On Child and Marriage"), and an "immanent dystelos" to replace the transcendent telos of what the crucifix symbolizes. All I see are people parroting the Petersonian bastardization that one's conscious ego ought to causally conjure up new values out of thin air, as though there is a unified unchanging ego, as though this "weakest organ" has that kind of causal power, as though Nietzsche was just some type of relativistic rugged individualist and not a "physican of culture", psychologist and axiological aristocrat, as though Dionysian affirmation and the health―decadence axiology are just as good as any values, and, finally, as though there are moral oughts good for everyone... The revaluation of life over truth that undergirds everything isn't a relativistic project at all, it might just require a certain type of will. Ok enough blabbering, let's watch this video! I don't expect to be disappointed, I'm loving all your content so far, thank you!
The more I think about it, the more I think I am that low percent that is obssesed with Nietzche.
Regarding the question of free will in the context of Amore Fati / eternal recurrence:
The human perspective of space-time is weirdly blinkered; we see the merest iota of the universe, through a tiny, tiny peephole that WILL NOT SIT STILL in the direction of time, and refuses to turn back on that axis, ever. This condition of ours can be likened to a reader in a library; the reader is surrounded by tens of thousands of books, but can only perceive the contents of the book in his hands, and only a word at a time. He cannot go back and read again, and must rely on his memory of what he has read if he wishes to linger on it.
The entirety of the book in the reader's hands exists, not just the word he is reading at a given moment, nor the page upon which that word is printed.
All the books in the library exist, with all their contents intact, despite most of them being forever outside the reader's experience.
This library is the universe seen from a four-dimensional perspective; at one end of its time axis is the Big Bang; at the other the Big Crunch or the eventual heat death of the universe, or. . . whatever it's going to be. We're all embedded in this four-dimensional object; our bodies are worms that wind and grow fatter, then thinner through our travels, from mother's womb to the tomb.
Our minds and senses are too limited to view the universe this way except as a thought experiment; instead, our consciousness travels along these worms that are our four-dimensional bodies, in the direction of the time axis.
It all exists, all at once. . . so it's set in stone, unalterable, everything that has ever existed embedded in the amber of space-time, as eternal as anything can be. It's easy to mistake this for a situation in which our consciousnesses are propelled along a channel made of moments that we cannot escape, that we did not make, toward an inescapable fate that by extension is also not of our making.
The time axis and the movement of consciousness along it is real, though. . . so although from a four-dimensional perspective everything is changelessly set in stone, we are intrinsically part of the universe, and our conscious free will has shaped / is shaping / will shape it. Our choices are baked into our local bit of the space-time continuum. We're not confined to a track; the track runs more or less where we will decide / are deciding /have decided it should run.
To insist that this isn't free will because it's unchangeable is absurd; it amounts to complaining that you can't make your decisions more than once. You have made all of your decisions, from a four-dimensional perspective. . . but YOU MADE THEM; they did not make you. Those decisions are inseparable from your course through the four-dimensional world.
That was very good, nay, excellent.
@@martinrea8548 Thank you, Martin.
I remember seeing your idea that we are all worms seen from the fourth dimensional perspective in a memoir of a madman, how ironic
@@YM-cw8so I never claimed to have come up with it independently, but I didn't get it from Flaubert.
00:41 🧬 Nietzsche aimed to craft a new religion, the Dionysian religion, as part of his revaluation of old metaphysics and morality, with the Overman as its central figure.
01:49 🤔 Nietzsche initially introduces the concept of the Overman early in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra," but it is met with rejection and misunderstanding, similar to how many intellectuals today may misunderstand it.
03:27 🧩 Nietzsche's writings often have both esoteric and exoteric meanings, aiming to convey ideas that can be comprehended intuitively even by those with no philosophical background.
07:23 💪 "Overman" is a better translation than "Superman" for "Übermensch" because it expresses the idea of overcoming humanity and being beyond mankind.
08:46 🚀 The Overman is a potential and infinite concept, always beyond the current state of humanity, representing what humanity can aspire to become.
10:34 🌍 The Overman is not a historical or racial concept; it's always discussed in the singular as an individual who represents the infinite potential for human growth.
12:08 🌟 Nietzsche believes that it's through the rarest individuals among humanity that life can be justified, elevated, or redeemed.
14:39 🌟 Nietzsche acknowledges that historical figures, no matter how great, are still "all too human" and cannot be called Overmen, but they serve as premonitions or flashes of the Overman's potential.
17:27 🌟 Nietzsche views the death of God as an opportunity and a challenge for humanity to find a new eternal value to replace the old religious beliefs.
19:42 🌟 Nietzsche encourages individuals to recreate themselves and their values, striving to become the forefathers of the Overman and embracing the challenge of bringing forth a new ideal.
20:52 🚀 Nietzsche finds meaning in exploration and self-mastery, focusing on the ideal beyond our current state of being.
22:56 🔄 Nietzsche's ideal, the Overman, embraces transformation and becoming, not a return to stasis or original contentment.
23:39 🌟 Understanding ourselves as dynamic beings, we should strive to bring forth what is better than our current state.
25:03 💡 Nietzsche rejects assessing life solely based on suffering, emphasizing the importance of creating something beyond oneself.
29:17 🌄 Nietzsche encourages the idea of "going under" to make way for something greater, like the Overman.
36:50 🌎 Nietzsche urges remaining faithful to the Earth and rejecting otherworldly hopes and contempt for the body.
41:03 🤔 The greatest experience is the "hour of great contempt," where even one's happiness can arouse disgust, challenging the idea of measuring existence by happiness alone.
41:46 🌟 Nietzsche discusses the concept of "great contempt" as a necessary first stage in personal transformation, where one must part with the happiness that comes from staying in the familiar and easy.
43:20 💭 Nietzsche challenges the alignment of reason with life and questions whether reason serves life, emphasizing the importance of aligning one's will to truth with one's will to power.
44:18 🚀 To truly transform and become an overman, one must be willing to part with their current character, assumptions, moral ideas, and even pity for humanity. Man is something to be overcome.
48:01 ⚡ Nietzsche encourages living powerfully and dangerously, giving oneself entirely to a value or ideal, even if it leads to one's downfall, as this is the path to meaningful life.
59:06 📉 Nietzsche introduces the concept of the "last man" who represents the opposite direction for mankind, characterized by weakness, atrophy, and a focus on preserving comfort and bland contentment.
01:02:24 🌍 Nietzsche's concept of the "last man" symbolizes a life focused solely on self-preservation, leading to a small and unfulfilling existence.
01:04:43 🔄 The last man's perspective suggests that all of history was morally inferior until recent times, overlooking hierarchies and valuing the collective over individual exceptionalism.
01:07:02 📊 Nietzsche critiques utilitarianism for equating inherently unequal experiences and reducing all lives and forms of happiness to a single standard.
01:09:22 🤡 Nietzsche's teaching aims to challenge societal norms and inspire individuals to embrace danger, risk, and their unique calling or vocation in life.
01:12:37 🚶♂ The tightrope walker allegory illustrates the importance of not trying to skip steps in life's journey and embracing the process of becoming the overman gradually.
01:15:08 🤝 Embracing danger as one's vocation and being willing to perish in the pursuit of a greater purpose is essential according to Nietzsche's philosophy.
Be all that you can be. - U.S. Army Recruiter
Untergehen can convey both to go under and to undergo.
19:20 'god is an objection to the overman'; a conjecture
Is there a video of "History as a guide for life" or something like that??
This explains my avatar name. Thanks.
I've heard somewhere, perhaps you have said that Freud said, knee chair (voice-to-text lol) was the most self-aware man he knew.
Rick Roderick talked about it in the man under siege UA-cam episode mocking people health obsessed and supplement obsessed and running on treadmills just so they could live longer where he was talking about Heidegger who said the similar thing as knee chair did and that is how we go towards that or tumble towards death that is more important than how long we live. Something like that.
Whats more noble way then fighting the greatest force there is.... Just like the health and supplement ppl the UA-cam "cool" guy is making fun of lololol. 🤡
14:50 cultures that produce a great number of great individuals provide a blue-print of the ideal.
Of what should we make of the culture that produced the tora?
of what do we make of the culture that produced Trump?
Should we perhaps not be concerned with the quantity of great individuals but also the quality?
which begs the question, 'if mankind requires a common value for mankind to become comprehendible to man' (Camus), what should it be? And thereby how do we judge, perhaps measure, the greatness of an individual?
Truth saves lives, lying also saves lives. Is there any difference between these two lives?
Does the value depend on it's background?
Which is more important saving lives or telling the truth?
34:10 'much of us is still worm: less ape than any ape'
you were curious as to other interpretations: my interpretation is that much of us is still worm, it wriggles and writhes in protest to the most basic discomforts. Worms are highly sensitive to light: they reflexively recoil then instinctually, habitually and seemingly compulsively burry their heads in the dirt as do humans when confronted with enlightenment. We are less ape than any ape because we allow ourselves to 'feel' less, the ape by contrast is more noble; the ape by contrast is unafraid to feel.
yes indeed: if you are not an overman you are likely an idiot of human experience: you dont feel (you writhe in protest in response to the most subtle discomforts) or you are afraid to feel (a timid ape).
Even the 'wisest' among us are analogous to 'ghosts and a plants' because they have prejudice's towards the body and the energy economy that is emotion: they dont feel and seemingly never grow beyond the perspective of a plant among trees (perhaps they were malnourished thus they couldn't reach past the canopy). These wise men are like ghosts because they say one thing and do another: imitation is empty likewise is hypocracy (think of the people who claim that there is no such thing as free will: everything is cliché to them).
what is this bridge to the overman?
to become more ape than an ape we must do what: trust our bodies? Is this tightrope we traverse a metaphor representing the bond we share with the body, and the great fall a degeneration and distancing from the ideal (a numbness or desire to be numb)?
Where is the second part of this..."the convalescence" idea you mentioned at the end?? What is the title of THAT video??
ua-cam.com/video/MR8vXVSDFcQ/v-deo.htmlsi=aOcHWcDBqosLwh5Q
Is there a part 2?
Well, for Nietzsche, Jules Caesar, Napoleon, perhaps Goethe, even Jesus Christ and other few had been Overmen.
While these all qualify as great individuals or higher men (excluding, possibly, Jesus), remember Zarathustra’s saying that he looked into the highest man and the lowest, and found them all, “human, all too human”. The term Ubermensch is never directly applied to any of the figures you mention in his written work, and while some such as Kaufmann think that it could be applied, I think the Ubermensch collapses as a concept once it starts being applied to individual, living human beings - because then it can no longer replace the idea of God. It ceases to be an infinite concept and becomes finite.
@@untimelyreflections thanks.
Nietzsche was not an atheist. He called himself an "Honest Pagan". Nietzsche inverted all concepts, philosophies, and religious concepts to hold up the other end of the Rorschach test. To create a mirror of the reality (The lie) we made. Anyone quoting Nietzsche does not seem to understand that the quote says more about themselves than it says about Nietzsche.
I think that your interpretation of the Last Man as being the ultimate utilitarian isn't wrong, but doesn't dig deep enough. It could be said that the Last Man's utilitarianism is merely surface level with no substance behind it, otherwise most people would have an ethics such as Peter Singer's (which in his virtue is pretty consistent with his ethical philosophy despite having disdain for utilitarianism myself).
The Last Man is merely a being that exists for the sake of existing, no higher goal or virtue beyond what is expected of him or beyond his immediate need or wants. He is a vulgar hedonist and a person with no guiding principle in life, a passive nihilist at heart, and only concerned with his contentment.
The Last Man is the ultimate herd animal.
The Last Man:
When is it time to leave a place of comfort?? Or should man never have allowed himself to BE in a place of comfort??
Is confort relative as per your example of the greeks going through their Spartan manhood rite of passage and thus, some pain?? You become wishy washy when saying modern man you "know" arre NOT all living in comfort, but you know better speedily compared to the old spartans. Isn't comfort the inevitable result of all that effort and sacrifice?? Or is he asking for movement "forward" as soon as you feel comfortable and safe, an eternal battle, as a way of life itself?? Where is the man that never rests??
Isn't also this related to the idea Nietzsche gave us that now we all survive, the weak are not allowed to die, the deficient not allowed to lovingly let go?? These are the parts that, THOUGH TRUE, the germans of last century loved for their final solutions, ignoring most of the rest Nietzsche said, where he didn't identify a specific race for this overman goal??
Talk about Nietzsche being on a "ego trip".
Your podcasts have helped me see resentment as the greatest driver of human misery on earth. That it's self inflicted and utterly futile and poisonous to the well being of both the self and those it's directed at.
It's hard to understand how Nietzsche missed it in himself.
Let me explain: I've now listened to all of your Nietzsche podcasts. Most of them twice. They are deep, complex, well organized and outstanding. I feel like I have at least a basic grasp of Nietzsche's philosophical project and what lead to it. The central negative quality underlying human morality appears to be resentment to Nietzsche. The remedy to this is "Amore Fate" to embrace one's fate no mater how seemingly unjust or tragic because we all serve the becoming of the Overman, and have no choice anyway. Free will is illusory. Fate governs all.
But there are contradictions that trouble me here. Not enough to dismiss Nietzche's insights into human nature and conciousness or his critiques of social structures, religion, philosophies and their moral underpinnings. But contradictions which call into question his remedy:
It seems clear that Nietzsche views resentment as bad in and of itself. I suspect that this derives from Nietzsche's love of classical antiquity and what he saw as it's decline through decadance. Especially the slave uprising of Christianty which was it's death knell. In short, Nietzsche's philosophy was itself driven by resentment. Resentment that the Lowerman had gained the upper hand, and had destroyed what was best, most beautiful and highest in mankind.
His resentment is incoherent given his very own philosophy however.
If all is fated, there is no point in resenting anything. Quite the opposite. Amore Fate, right? The Overman is no better - or worse - than the Lowerman. We have no choice or agency in the matter. Celebrating or resenting the coming / overcoming of either is pointless. Accepting both without predudice or judgement is more logical and productive to well being, and ironically, human progress. What he got right in my estimation was to strive towards embracing your nature and circumstances rather than resenting them, or anything else. In short, the Overman and Lowerman are spurious artifacts of the primitive dichotomous reasoning system Nietzsche employed to dissect reality.
Philosophising with a hammer? More like brain surgery with a chainsaw. But I suppose it was the best tool availible at the time.
I found this comment so interesting that I’m going to make a video response to it!
@@untimelyreflections I'm honored. You just gained a patron.
@@untimelyreflections The Roman Catholic Church has made many claims which are contradicted in its actual practices in comparison to the recorded teachings of Jesus. Unfortunately for the world, Catholicism has impressed a reputation upon other Christians. After deep study of the written teachings of Jesus, I understand his criticism of self-appointed religious authorities. I believe that we must give recognition to Christians who have grown much in spirituality and intellectual power, while their compassion and contentment have strengthened
I've tried responding to this a few times, and I can't seem to nail down my disagreements quite how I want to which is rapidly getting my goat the more I rewrite my response, so I'm going to spew up what I can.
"38. My conception of freedom. - The value of a thing sometimes does not lie in that which one attains by it, but in what one pays for it - what it costs us. I shall give an example. Liberal institutions cease to be liberal as soon as they are attained: later on, there are no worse and no more thorough injurers of freedom than liberal institutions. Their effects are known well enough: they undermine the will to power; they level mountain and valley, and call that morality; they make men small, cowardly, and hedonistic - every time it is the herd animal that triumphs with them. Liberalism: in other words, herd-animalization."
Everything you posted sounds to me very resigned. It sounds accepting and tolerant. It sounds wide minded and it sounds exactly like what he criticizes in philistines, Christians, and Buddhists. What does he go on to say?
"Freedom means that the manly instincts which delight in war and victory dominate over other instincts, for example, over those of “pleasure.” The human being who has become free - and how much more the spirit who has become free - spits on the contemptible type of well-being dreamed of by shopkeepers, Christians, cows, females, Englishmen, and other democrats. The free man is a warrior."
I've had trouble responding to your comment precisely for the above reason. I hold it in contempt. Should an Irishmen denounce rising of 1916 since they resented English rule? Should the Poles have been denounced for holding their occupiers in contempt? The French? The roots of life are morally dubious! And if Nietzsche was nothing else, he was a philosopher of life. You are making one of his observations into an axiom about his philosophy and molding the rest to fit. One thing about this channel I am suspicious of is this whole "Nietzschean morality" or "Nietzschean ethics" thing I've been hearing. I'm interested in the thoughts, but I don't think for a second this "great immoralist" was meaning for anything than that men send their ships into unexplored seas and build their homes on the slopes of Vesuvius and took violent imagery to impel men's spirits back to a sense of health.
@@conatus1306 I'm not really sure what your criticism is aimed at - my critique of Nietzche's critique of Christianity and slave moraity via resentment as hypocritical / blind to his on resentment, or if it's a wider critique of Keegan's (Absolutely outstandng IMO) presentation of the Nietzche's entire philosophical project, it's antecedants, and it's profound imapact on modernity via this channel as a body of work.
Resentment is bad from Nietzsche's
standpoint because fate determines everything.
We don't have free will in his conception of reality, so resenting injustice is worse than pointless - it's a rejection of his central thesis about the nature of reality as governed by fate rather than free will.
His position (as I understand it) is that free will is an illusion. We have no choice - The British were fated to screw the Irish. The Irish were fated to get screwed. Blaming and resenting the British doesn't change that.
Now if you're really clever, you'll see a contradiction here. The Irish resented the British, right?
...and everything is governed by fate accordingto Nietzche, right?
Therfore, the Irish were fated to resent the British, and had no choice, making resentment itself niether good nor bad!
...and so it goes with all philosophical systems. ALL of them. Even supposedly objective systems of knowledge like mathmatics are riddled with logical contradictions my freind.
Even basic arithmetic: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems
So again, I'm not sure what you're questioning here. I'm questioning human systems of logic as means of knowing anything with certainty by pointing out the inherent incoherence of logic itself....
Germany was divided for centuries. Centuries of inner tribal wars and religious conflicts did not produce a nation.. neitzeche l think admired greek culture as a antidote to the problem.
Why talk around it when it was Nietsche who invented the term "Superman"? O.o
okay but what actually is the overman? why should we take pride and draw meaning from bringing "overman" about? especially when the overman is just another thing to be overcome.
Ive listened twice now and still have no clue..it can’t even be explained properly, because no one who does know can do that..
"Feed my will to feel this moment, urging me to cross the line"
Tool, Lateralus
30:00 'naa: your not a bridge to the overman'
tell them this:
You are an idiot of human experience: you don't feel!
I recently read that the term “Übermensch” was derived from a Greek term “hyperanthropos”. That suggests a different interpretation, it seems to me. The “overman” would be an “epianthropos”-a being above or beyond the current human. “Hyper” suggests more an “extreme” human-someone whose human potential is maximally realized. In that sense, Goethe would seem like a good prototype. Christianity (ironically) has its own version of the Übermensch in the person of Jesus, who is referred to not only as the Son of God, but also as the Son of MAN. This also reminds me of the passage in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance where Pirsig describes the many ways in which Odysseus embodies “arete” (I was going to quote it, but this is already long).
Removal of consequence and proof by ability. The rise of Convenience, Safety and Commodification. Gives us the hubrisian dialectical of nothingness that leads to a neo colonosation of the mental state, as the now overriding power structure.
God, or the concept of a powerful outside force that is on your side, is a very powerful thing. Albeit, even if it only exist in your own mind. Yet this force you believe in causes you to do things. God is therfore, in the mind of those who believe, thier super ego. If the belief, programming, is great, then this can cause you to have God, literally, existing in you. As a new personality that I like to call, the Super Duper Ego. Religious people of different faiths all claim to be able to communicate with thier respective Gods. Either they are all right or they are communicating with this Super Duper Ego. Without a belief in God, we by nature assume his role as God of our own lives. Our Super ego loses the battle to the ID, as we make crappy gods and become pleasure principled people. This lack of belief in God would be on a bell curve, just as people who believe, will believe to different degrees and also fall on a curve. The agnostic gets the best of both worlds. Just by saying, I don't know. The Ubermensch will envitably go nuts, as he can't deal with his upbringing. Too many error messages as you introduce new programming. It's a paradox.
If there is no "recipe" or guide for THE overman, can it be that the overman is geological, made out of the necessities of life in any one region and climate, several kinds of overman?? just as geography created different moralities, so does it creates different overmen that create their own values according to PLACE of living, by the local necessities of life.
But a religion or morality is the only way to pass this AIM on to the broader humanity; it seems a contradiction but it is not: the eternal return. People need gods or higher ups to give them orders, a code, and once enforced, that automatically creates a higher sort of man if the person's character allowed it, under that code and region...??
This is just marginally relevant, but "untergehen" is a verb. You don't "do an untergehen". The noun you are looking for is "Untergang".
What's your thoughts on Nietzsche and Jung being a modern older evil brother, younger, good brother motif. Like Cain and Abel or Loki Thor etc.
And if you're familiar with the motif, what do you believe the psychological significance of this is?
That is to say, can we reduce this to a concept of phenomena that explains some mechanism regarding the transformation of consciousness or even the collective psyche, the same way we would explain edipus complex in real life terms. Symbolically, I believe It can be understood quite easily, but are there real-life dramas that explain its recurrence as a symbol.
Hope that made sense.
Let it be so that the sins of the Father be but a merely laugh-stock unto the Son! Not, however, out of shame or embarrassment that his Father sinned at all, but precisely because He sinned - His sins!
- O' Laugh!
- My Son!
- O' Let it be!
- That thou see:
- O' mine irony!
- O' mine comedy!
- Hither contiained... within!
- For hither is my tragedy!
- O' Hither is my sin!
~ Havre Chithra
O' my Zarathustra, you sat upon thy great mountain and with thy eagle. O' my Zarathustra, you sat down in thy cave, with thy lonely lion, thy serpent and thy virgos volutarium!
- For this, I ask you: Supposing truth to be a woman - what? .... what then about YOUR WOMAN? What then has any of this here, up on your mountain and in your cavus virgos, served to bring forth YOUR OVERMAN?
O' my Zarathustra, could this have been your truth...? perhaps, even YOUR IRONY...? ... That you spoke still only of THE OVERMAN and never about that which may be first and most immediately your own...? ... and for this... YOUR children were in fact... never truly Nigh!
O' my Zarathustra, your Spirit however doth live on with me - for thee, I do not pity; and so I now carry forth your flame!
O' my Zarathustra, in your fire hath I been baptized... with it will I also baptize MY OVERMAN, so that one day HE may also bring about HIS. O' my Zarathustra, doest thou not recognize me yet? 'Tis I, Havre Chithra: Your Sun-Faced One! With your flame, Father, I add to 'Our Sacred Fire' - Ahura Mazda.
- From thus do I overflow: baptizing with thy fertile ashes and burning tongues which lash and rain.... so that one this fire may not simply BE, sustained within me, but to go and grow on.... and continuously be-come- nay overco-... -me... and itself!
~ Havre Chithra