Does a seperate "self" exist independent of it's space & time?

[aelf]

No, Nietzsche was thinking more in terms of the human race, rather than the individual. (Again a concept misinterpreted by more extremist minds.) I doubt Nietzsche saw much room in terms of individual self-improvement, but rather was thinking in terms of general evolution of our species.

It is an individual journey. What evolution are you talking about?

The ewige wiederkunft des Gleichen is a very different concept from the Übermensch. It is not entirely clear, but if the two are combined, I reckon he'd envision the latter as something what might indeed overcome the former. (Admittedly that is a bit speculative, though.)

AFAIK, being the Overman is pretty much about the eternal recurrence. If you can will it for every moment of your life, you're there. Nietzsche sought a solution to the pessimistic worldview he inherited from Schopenhauer (which demanded the negation of the will and the turning to asceticism). The eternal recurrence is his final answer, after the lightness of being we see in Thus Spoke Zarathustra and something that Zarathustra teaches as a "convalescent" - someone who has understood the truth but hasn't reached the point himself.

 

[Agent327]

I'm sorry but that's incorrect:

Nietzsche selbst beschrieb in seiner Autobiographie Ecce homo, wie ihn dieser Gedanke in einem Augenblick der Inspiration überfiel:
„Die Grundconception des Werks [Also sprach Zarathustra], der Ewige-Wiederkunfts-Gedanke, diese höchste Formel der Bejahung, die überhaupt erreicht werden kann –, gehört in den August des Jahres 1881: er ist auf ein Blatt hingeworfen, mit der Unterschrift: „6000 Fuss jenseits von Mensch und Zeit.“ Ich gieng an jenem Tage am See von Silvaplana durch die Wälder; bei einem mächtigen pyramidal aufgethürmten Block unweit Surlei machte ich Halt. Da kam mir dieser Gedanke.“[1]

or, in translation:

Nietzsche himself described in his autobiography Ecce homo, how this thought came to him in a moment of inspiration:

"The fundamental concept of the work [Thus spake Zarathustra], the eternal-recurrence-thought, this highest form of confirmation that ever can be reached -, belongs to august of the year 1881: its been smitten unto a page with the subscript ''6,000 feet beyond man and time". That day I went through the forests of Silvaplana Lake; I stopped at a mighty pyramidical block, not far from Surlei. There came this though."

The Übermensch (German; English: Overman, Superman) is a concept in the Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche posited the Übermensch as a goal for humanity to set for itself in his 1883 book Thus Spoke Zarathustra (German: Also Sprach Zarathustra).
The book's protagonist, Zarathustra, contends that "man is something which ought to be overcome:"

All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment…
​

It's quite clear when reading Thus spoke Zarathustra what Nietzsche meant. (As it is when comparing this to the Übermensch-Untermensch racial idea that the two have nothing to do with Nietzsches original idea. To me personally it is also very clear that for instance Hitler never read the book; the man abhorred reading - and intellectuals, which Nietzsche clearly was.)

 

[aelf]

I'm sorry but that's incorrect:

We shall see.

Nietzsche selbst beschrieb in seiner Autobiographie Ecce homo, wie ihn dieser Gedanke in einem Augenblick der Inspiration überfiel:
„Die Grundconception des Werks [Also sprach Zarathustra], der Ewige-Wiederkunfts-Gedanke, diese höchste Formel der Bejahung, die überhaupt erreicht werden kann –, gehört in den August des Jahres 1881: er ist auf ein Blatt hingeworfen, mit der Unterschrift: „6000 Fuss jenseits von Mensch und Zeit.“ Ich gieng an jenem Tage am See von Silvaplana durch die Wälder; bei einem mächtigen pyramidal aufgethürmten Block unweit Surlei machte ich Halt. Da kam mir dieser Gedanke.“[1]

or, in translation:

Nietzsche himself described in his autobiography Ecce homo, how this thought came to him in a moment of inspiration:

"The fundamental concept of the work [Thus spake Zarathustra], the eternal-recurrence-thought, this highest form of confirmation that ever can be reached -, belongs to august of the year 1881: its been smitten unto a page with the subscript ''6,000 feet beyond man and time". That day I went through the forests of Silvaplana Lake; I stopped at a mighty pyramidical block, not far from Surlei. There came this though."

The Übermensch (German; English: Overman, Superman) is a concept in the Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche posited the Übermensch as a goal for humanity to set for itself in his 1883 book Thus Spoke Zarathustra (German: Also Sprach Zarathustra).
The book's protagonist, Zarathustra, contends that "man is something which ought to be overcome:"

All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment…
​

It's quite clear when reading Thus spoke Zarathustra what Nietzsche meant. (As it is when comparing this to the Übermensch-Untermensch racial idea that the two have nothing to do with Nietzsches original idea. To me personally it is also very clear that for instance Hitler never read the book; the man abhorred reading - and intellectuals, which Nietzsche clearly was.)

But you have no idea what being the Übermensch entails, do you? You keep throwing the term around but not once have you explained what it actually is about.

Yes, there are different interpretations of how Nieztsche's philosophy works. But even a reading of the wiki page lends credibility to what I said:

Nietzsche introduces the concept of the Übermensch in contrast to the other-worldliness of Christianity: Zarathustra proclaims the Übermensch to be the meaning of the earth and admonishes his audience to ignore those who promise other-worldly hopes in order to draw them away from the earth. The turn away from the earth is prompted, he says, by a dissatisfaction with life, a dissatisfaction that causes one to create another world in which those who made one unhappy in this life are tormented. The Übermensch is not driven into other worlds away from this one.

The Christian escape from this world also required the invention of an eternal soul which would be separate from the body and survive the body's death. Part of other-worldliness, then, was the denigration and mortification of the body, or asceticism. Zarathustra further links the Übermensch to the body and to interpreting the soul as simply an aspect of the body.

As the drama of Thus Spoke Zarathustra progresses, the turn to metaphysics in philosophy and Platonism in general come to light as manifestations of other-worldliness, as well. Truth and nature are inventions by means of which men escape from this world. The Übermensch is also free from these failings.

The Übermensch shares a place of prominence in Thus Spoke Zarathustra with another of Nietzsche's key concepts: the eternal recurrence of the same. Over the course of the drama, the latter waxes as the former wanes. Several interpretations for this fact have been offered.

Laurence Lampert suggests that the eternal recurrence replaces the Übermensch as the object of serious aspiration. This is in part due to the fact that even the Übermensch can appear like an other-worldly hope. The Übermensch lies in the future — no historical figures have ever been Übermenschen — and so still represents a sort of eschatological redemption in some future time.

Stanley Rosen, on the other hand, suggests that the doctrine of eternal return is an esoteric ruse meant to save the concept of the Übermensch from the charge of Idealism. Rather than positing an as-yet unexperienced perfection, Nietzsche would be the prophet of something that has occurred an infinite number of times in the past.

Others maintain that willing the eternal recurrence of the same is a necessary step if the Übermensch is to create new values, untainted by the spirit of gravity or asceticism. Values involve a rank-ordering of things, and so are inseparable from approval and disapproval; yet it was dissatisfaction that prompted men to seek refuge in other-worldliness and embrace other-worldly values. Therefore, it could seem that the Übermensch, in being devoted to any values at all, would necessarily fail to create values that did not share some bit of asceticism. Willing the eternal recurrence is presented as accepting the existence of the low while still recognizing it as the low, and thus as overcoming the spirit of gravity or asceticism.

Still others suggest that one must have the strength of the Übermensch in order to will the eternal recurrence of the same; that is, only the Übermensch will have the strength to fully accept all of his past life, including his failures and misdeeds, and to truly will their eternal return. This action nearly kills Zarathustra, for example, and most human beings cannot avoid other-worldliness because they really are sick, not because of any choice they made.

Refer to my earlier post and examine the parallels.

I would say that the reason why Nietzsche came up with the eternal recurrence at a different time from when he conceived of the Übermensch was because he was looking for the solution the problem of pessimism that he grappled with throughout his life. First, he conceived of what it might be like to reject other-worldliness. Then he figured out how. Or vice versa - I'm not sure now which one was actually thought up first.

I have no time for now, but another day maybe I can take some great quotes from a book on Nietzsche that deals with the progression and the cycle of his philosophy.

 

[homeyg]

This question is a little abstract for my taste but nonetheless I thought of it the other day & thought it would make good thread material. I tend to think it does not (there is no "pure soul" that exists outside of circumstance), that any "self" requires context & some sort of relationship with externals or it cannot exist. It may please the human ego to think such a "self" exists but I don't see any evidence it does.

I thought of this thread a few days ago but A : been busy B : didn't think to start it until I saw the "how do you find yourself" thread.

Have fun.

Our sense of self is a part of space time as it is located inside the brain. However, whatever mechanism controls this must be extremely good at creating an equilibrium state because I have felt like I've been the same person my whole life.

 

[aelf]

Continued from my previous post to clarify...

To sum it up: The Overman is essentially one who is able to live with himself and with the world. He is able to will anything because anything is his will. Amor fati. What is a better measure for this than willing the eternal recurrence? In fact, that seems necessary, as anything less substantial is no different from what normal people are capable of, and might be illusory. By then Nietzsche has come to reject refuge in illusion (whether it's God, beauty or philosophy) as other-worldliness, as the wiki article suggests.

 

[Agent327]

Wrong again.

But you have no idea what being the Übermensch entails, do you? You keep throwing the term around but not once have you explained what it actually is about.

Yes, there are different interpretations of how Nieztsche's philosophy works. ...I would say that the reason why Nietzsche came up with the eternal recurrence at a different time from when he conceived of the Übermensch was because he was looking for the solution the problem of pessimism that he grappled with throughout his life. First, he conceived of what it might be like to reject other-worldliness. Then he figured out how. Or vice versa - I'm not sure now which one was actually thought up first.

As I've tried to explain Übermensch/Overhuman does not refer to any personal self, but rather to the human species at large. Now, if you'd ever read Thus spoke Zarathustra, you wouldn't throw secondary sources at me, now would you? I suggest you do that before posting any further factually incorrect comments. (FYI, I've read the book in the original language; it's not that hard to understand, even in translation.)

 

[aelf]

Wrong again.

As I've tried to explain Übermensch/Overhuman does not refer to any personal self, but rather to the human species at large. Now, if you'd ever read Thus spoke Zarathustra, you wouldn't throw secondary sources at me, now would you? I suggest you do that before posting any further factually incorrect comments. (FYI, I've read the book in the original language; it's not that hard to understand, even in translation.)

And you'd be wrong there because I read Thus Spoke and I know enough to know that it's not a conventional philosophical essay. None of it allows you to draw the firm conclusion you have about the Übermensch, which you still haven't managed to explain.

On the other hand, some secondary sources can and do offer good analyses of Nietzsche's philosophy, which rather seems like a confused mass if taken at face value. And unlike you, I've actually offered a coherent picture of what it means to become an Overman, which by the way is still an individual endeavour. I'd like to see you explain more about how we are supposed to evolve as a species into a higher being. You say you reject the racial/biological explanation and yet you seem to hold on to it stubbornly.

PS: And I notice you ignored the wiki article I cited entirely.

 

[Agent327]

You may have read Zarathustra, but show no inkling of comprehension if you think Nietzsche's Overman is an individual; as was clear from the quote from the text, it is not. Now if you feel the need to continue any factual discussion, I suggest taking this to my What is philosophy? thread, as the Übermensch does not concern the self, therefore is off topic as concern this thread.

BTW, if one understand Nietzsche's source text (which I quoted), there's no real reason to discuss secondary texts, as they concern - as you stated - interpretation. Finally, it's perfectly possible to discuss a Overman concept with regard to the self (as in ego), it's just not in line with Nietzsche's concept of it.

PS Wiki is fine for quotes, if proper references are used; in general not all Wikipedia articles are up to their own standard even.

 

[REDY]

You have both true and Nietzsche should be interpretated by both ways imho. I am not good in English so I would not be able help with yours interesting discussion, but influence of Darwin´s theory was quite important in Nietzsche´s philosophy, on the other hand I think that übermensch should be created by self fulfillment rather than by evolution. Some individuals were closer to term than others (Shakespeare,Wagner, Schopenhauer...) "Not mandkind but übermensch is goal."

 

[aelf]

You may have read Zarathustra, but show no inkling of comprehension if you think Nietzsche's Overman is an individual; as was clear from the quote from the text, it is not. Now if you feel the need to continue any factual discussion, I suggest taking this to my What is philosophy? thread, as the Übermensch does not concern the self, therefore is off topic as concern this thread.

BTW, if one understand Nietzsche's source text (which I quoted), there's no real reason to discuss secondary texts, as they concern - as you stated - interpretation. Finally, it's perfectly possible to discuss a Overman concept with regard to the self (as in ego), it's just not in line with Nietzsche's concept of it.

PS Wiki is fine for quotes, if proper references are used; in general not all Wikipedia articles are up to their own standard even.

Shrug. If you insist. All you're saying, as before, is "You know nothing!" blah blah. I have yet to see any explanation whatsoever of what becoming the Overman means beyond the vague "Oh, we must evolve as a species!" emptiness.

Don't blame me if I think your argument is bunk.

PS: To set the record straight, certainly, as I understand it, Übermensch is not referring to an individual. But it's still a journey that individuals have to undertake. There's no spontaneous mass evolution or whatever nonsense.

You have both true and Nietzsche should be interpretated by both ways imho. I am not good in English so I would not be able help with yours interesting discussion, but influence of Darwin´s theory was quite important in Nietzsche´s philosophy, on the other hand I think that übermensch should be created by self fulfillment rather than by evolution. Some individuals were closer to term than others (Shakespeare,Wagner, Schopenhauer...) "Not mandkind but übermensch is goal."

Yes. As per what I'm saying, that is the only coherent explanation I've found so far.

 

[REDY]

Yes, it also seemed that some individuals like Shakespeare were closer to übermensch.

I think that I have some relevant analogy to problem. I havent read Space oddyssey, only watched it and I think that you probably too. The ending of movie shows some development of man to higher kind of man.
Fight with computer was won by individual but I doubt that fetus of new higher man was individual

 

[aelf]

Yes, it also seemed that some individuals like Shakespeare were closer to übermensch.

I think that I have some relevant analogy to problem. I havent read Space oddyssey, only watched it and I think that you probably too. The ending of movie shows some development of man to higher kind of man.
Fight with computer was won by individual but I doubt that fetus of new higher man was individual

Heh, I just found Space Odyssey quite zany. But I believe it's no coincidence that Also Sprach is the theme song for it. There's no single interpretation, but it hints strongly at the fact that the journey is made by the single lost astronaut, that he is the new man born at the end. And there's also hint that he comes to a true understanding of the origin and the life and death of himself and the species and therefore becomes the new man?

 

[REDY]

Yes but hes somewhat representative of mankind. Again there is not one interpretation and I doubt that it was even intended.

 

[Agent327]

In cauda venenum:

PS: To set the record straight, certainly, as I understand it, Übermensch is not referring to an individual. But it's still a journey that individuals have to undertake.

Now, with this I can concur. I just wonder why you did not acknowledge this earlier instead of insisting what I stated is wrong...

 

[Narz]

I remember watching Space Odessy in the middle of the night with my ex, we ordered burgers from the Bel-Aire Diner near my apartment (which won the Best Diner in NYC that year... or maybe it was just Queens). It was too weird & attempted mysterious to say I really liked it but not not enough so to say I didn't.

 

[aelf]

Now, with this I can concur. I just wonder why you did not acknowledge this earlier instead of insisting what I stated is wrong...

But that is a trivial (grammatical?) point, and it's not even the point that you disagreed with in the first place But never mind.

Yes but hes somewhat representative of mankind. Again there is not one interpretation and I doubt that it was even intended.

I think that's an issue of dramatical representation, though.

 

[Agent327]

But that is a trivial (grammatical?) point, and it's not even the point that you disagreed with in the first place

Actually, it was; which only goes to show the importance of semantics - in philosophy and elsewhere.

 

[aelf]

Well, AFAIK "mensch" does not refer to a single man, but Overman can be used to refer to a single individual who has reached the goal. That's no great truth.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

... this is a ridiculous topic. How exactly can a person ask the question when the actual term "Self" has not been defined conclusively by anyone?

How about we build the base of the house before deciding what windows to put on the third floor, lol.

 

[Agent327]

While it's true that many people will have different notions of "the self", it seems to me that's what this discussion is - at least partly - about. (Several definitions have been put forward already.)

Well, AFAIK "mensch" does not refer to a single man, but Overman can be used to refer to a single individual who has reached the goal. That's no great truth.

"Mensch" (German) can very well mean a single individual, depending on context; usually it's used referring to "man". The use in German and English (Mensch/man) is virtually identical; confer "dieser Mensch""/this man" and "der Mensch"/"man" and Menschheit/mankind. In the context of Thus spoke Zarathustra the meaning is quite clear from the context: "All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment…"

While it should be noted that Nietzsche then did not think of it in terms of the self, the concept of "overman" can ofcourse be used independently of Nietzsche - just like any concept. This discussion seems, however, to shed little light on the OP question, to which I suggest we return. (I'm very willing to further discuss Nietzsche on my What is philosphy thread? here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=317421 or on a separate thread, if desired.)