No. Islam does this. Sikhs too. Bahai. Parsi, Jews. How many other religions do you know well? — Tom Storm

Admittedly, I don't know much of anything about Sikhs, Bahai, and Parsi. After doing a quick google search, it appears to me that Parsi are partially concerned with inward orientation, Bahai are explicitly interested in behavior, and I'm not sure on Sikhism. I showed in an earlier post that Judaism and Islam are both heavily behavior-oriented.

I am a bit familiar with Buddhism. If I understand correctly, the central idea of Buddhism is that if you don't want things, then you won't be disappointed. Stripped of all its supernatural claims, the central idea of the religion appears to me to be objectively true. So, Buddhism is another religion that is concerned with inward orientation of the heart. I've read that Sikhism is related to Buddhism, so maybe it is similar.

I suppose it would be unfair then to say that Christianity is the only religion interested in inward orientation. But I have shown through numerous examples that this is certainly not an element that is common in all religions.

The west is implicitly Christian in orientation, so, I'm not ashamed to draw upon my own cultural background to try to figure things out. I think if I had been more familiar with Buddhism, I probably could have come to similar conclusions by drawing upon that background.

Because of this discussion, I think I have a better idea of what the ubermensch entails than before.

Before the modern era (roughly starting in the enlightenment period), Western people took their morals uncritically from Christianity. But Nietzsche realized that during his time, people didn't really believe anymore the way that they used to, hence, "God is dead." This meant that there was no longer moral consensus within society, nor certain moral guidance for individual people.

This lead to his idea of the "Übermensch" (there, I copied and pasted an umlaut). The idea is that this man is able to come up with his own values without reference to a religious system that people no longer believed in. Here is a definition from the internet, "the ideal superior man of the future who could rise above conventional Christian morality to create and impose his own values, originally described by Nietzsche in Thus Spake Zarathustra (1883–85)"

This definition contains 4 points:
1. "the ideal superior man of the future"
2. "who could rise above conventional Christian morality" -- I take this to mean that his morality does not require the use of Christianity (or other religions) as a premise
3. "to create ... his own values"
4. "to ... impose his own values"

I have argued that values are arbitrarily asserted, because there is no way to point to anything objective to prove them (see the is-ought dilemma). Therefore, I have argued that #1 is ill-defined. There is no way to prove that anything is superior to anything else by the use of premises that other people would readily accept. So, I'm arguing that #1 should be thrown out.


Most of my replies were related to my views on God. I do not actually consider my views on God necessary to my views on value selection, although speculation on God may be useful towards this end. I did argue on a game theory/evolutionary basis that there are certain values that will tend to be more prevalent, which might therefore be called, "God's values". But it's still not possible to prove that the morals that will be are the morals that ought to be.

You might argue that because my views are broadly consistent with many of Jesus' teachings, that disqualifies me from #2. But you could also make the exact same argument about Kant, for instance, because it could be argued that "love your neighbor as yourself" could be derived from the categorical imperative.

I argue that my views on value assertion are not dependent on any religious dogma, and therefore I meet #2. You could also argue that any moral philosopher who did not use outside authority as a premise could also fit #2. Technically, I do use empirical and logical arguments as outside authorities, but I think the secular western man would not object to this.


I set forth a method of value assertion in my original post, and therefore I argue that I fit #3. I could give another example of how to use the technique. I saw this post on youtube today:

"Personally don't feel really jolly at all lately, just seem to be getting more and more grumpy cynical dispondant and fed up with my life, everybody and everything around in life and the world in general."

Presuming that this person doesn't want to feel that way anymore, then the correct thing to do is to mourn (let go of) those things that he wants but can't have. There is a quote from the Bible which is appropriate, "Those who eat the bread of sorrow, rouse yourselves after resting." The message is that resting after suffering a loss is normal, but eventually you need to get up and find something else to live for. A Buddhist would probably say that suffering comes from desire, and so he would give the same advice that he needs to kill his desire. If this person wants to be jolly, then after (or during) the mourning process, he needs to find something else he cares about. This can be done arbitrarily, although a person's temperament will make some things easier than others.

The is-ought dilemma creates something that I like to call the "fact of nihilism", that you can't prove any objective moral statement. But it also means that you can't disprove any moral statement either. So, it's entirely possible to assert that existence is positively good, and that bad is only the loss of what was good. Or you could say that God (or "life", if you're offended by "God") can't take anything from you that he didn't give you first. I don't think it's possible to argue against this. So, it is entirely possible to let go of whatever you can't have (friends, money, status, whatever), and to find something else to live for (art, philosophy, sport, etc). You can't directly change your emotions, but you can directly change your values (by repeating to yourself what you want to believe and then acting on it), and then your values change your emotions. So if you want to develop a new hobby, you can just pick up a brush or a recorder and start playing, tell yourself, "it is good that I'm trying this," and see what happens.

So, I know from experience that it is entirely possible to choose to be jolly and not to be despondent, although the process takes time, and may be easier or harder based on one's temperament. It is totally possible because emotions require cognitive processes in order to happen, and a person can consciously change his model of the world. A person's temperament, however, affects how easily he feels certain emotions, and how strongly he feels them, but you can still cut those emotions off at the root by changing one's mental model of the world. For me personally, it's easy to acquire contentedness, but hard to acquire positive emotions like happiness.

I realized today that the only religions I'm aware of that practice monasticism are Christianity and Buddhism. I believe the reason for this is that these religions are focused on inward development, and this is the job of the monk. Religions which don't value inward development for its own sake have no purpose for monasticism. So, it could be argued that every good monk (and to a lesser extent, any sincerely religious person) fits #3, because have consciously changed their inward self.


I could argue that #4 is impossible in principle, because values are arbitrarily asserted from within. The people who have come closest are dictators like Lenin and Hitler who tried to impose their values by force. They made big changes to the external world, but they still never had the power to change 1 person's heart against that person's will. There were many Christians who died in the gulags, for instance, without being convinced of the truth of communism.

So I think I can fairly say I meet requirements #2 & #3 of being an ubermensch, and that #1 and #4 are difficult or impossible in principle. I heard read many arguments against my personal religious views, but I never saw any arguments against what I have laid out either here or in my very first post.

But I know I have heard people say that grumpiness due to hunger is a part of their personality, and other such things, when I know that I am able to consciously change these aspects of myself. So, I think I can fairly say that I have a better working model for myself (what I imagine consciousness to be) than most other people. — Brendan Golledge

Maybe you're just better at changing your attitude towards hunger than the people who told you that, among the things that others have told you.

Or maybe you're just as grumpy as everyone else, but you don't feel grumpy. In this scenario you'd actually have a worse model than the other person because you're incorrect about your grumpiness.

Or maybe you're only looking for people who aren't as good at you as changing their attitude towards hunger -- the people who are good at it don't have a need to announce to you their ability.

Or maybe they're incorrect about being able to change themselves and they're really just telling you that they're not interested in changing.

I have deleted my earlier, less than generous response.

You are doing your best and there's no real merit in my debating your presuppositions here. Go well.

I will leave you with this. The Ubermensch, as I understand it, transcends all foundational thinking and values. FN, though a shy, respectful and sensitive person in life, was like a one man demolition crew in print.

I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them. The will to a system is a lack of integrity.

― Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols

Probably why most people shouldn’t read Neitzsche.

Most people can't read Nietzsche. Reading Nietzsche without having first read Kant, Hume, Plato and the pre-Socratics is like watching 2001 A Space Odyssey without having learned how to count.

Most people can't read Nietzsche. Reading Nietzsche without having first read Kant, Hume, Plato and the pre-Socratics is like watching 2001 A Space Odyssey without having learned how to count. — Lionino

Sounds similar to Schopenhauer actually.. and many philosophers.

Most people can't read Nietzsche. Reading Nietzsche without having first read Kant, Hume, Plato and the pre-Socratics is like watching 2001 A Space Odyssey without having learned how to count. — Lionino

These may help you to read him (they didnt particularly help me), but to understand what he’s critiquing you may want to familiarize yourself with Hegel, Schopenhauer and Kierkegaard.

You are being even lazier, because I have made an argument, and you haven't. You are just asserting that I don't know what I'm talking about without providing any explanation of how that is. I could just as well assert that you're a bot and a troll and provide no evidence.

I googled for a definition of the uebermensch so that I could use a definition which I wasn't just pulling out of my own butt. If my definition is wrong, then YOU provide the definition.

I have made explicit tangible arguments. You (and most of the other people replying) have not addressed any of my arguments, nor made any arguments of your own. You have just asserted repeatedly that I am wrong, or that Nietzsche would think X, without even trying to explain why. I could just as well flip everything that you have said about me and say it about you instead, and it would be just as valid, since you have not made a single argument to back up anything you have said.

If I'm so foolish, and if it's so obvious that's the case, why can no one show a tangible argument to refute anything I've said?

Everyone is doing their best, some people's best is dangerous and thus society tends to lock them up. — Vaskane

That's for sure.

Everyone is doing their best — Vaskane

Nah, I am lazying around lots.

Sorry for double posting, I pressed post as an accident.

why can no one show a tangible argument to refute anything I've said? — Brendan Golledge

You haven't replied to some of the concrete criticisms in this thread.

If I'm so foolish, and if it's so obvious that's the case, why can no one show a tangible argument to refute anything I've said? — Brendan Golledge

Well, if a person makes claims of extraordinary achievement, what usually happens is that they get ridiculed or ignored. Sometimes, crucified. Drawn and quartered. Sometimes, people follow them with great devotion.

Such is the situation with those making claims of extraordinary achievement.

I have just found out that I am in fact the ubermensch, not OP. No one can convince me otherwise — it has been ubermenschlich revealed to me.

Congrats, I guess. But as the Kwisatz Haderach this doesn't seem that special to me.

Congrats, I guess. But as the Kwisatz Haderach this doesn't seem that special to me. — Count Timothy von Icarus

:rofl:

Instead of listening to the OP's attempts to clarify, you all keep focusing on the Ubermensch bit and taking the mickey. I'm closing this.