Where Goeth The Ubermensch?

Of all the major philosophers, Nietzsche is the most enjoyable to read for me. His lust for life and appreciation for every breath he breathes jumps out of every page with the passion of his points. Unfortunately, I often find that people greatly misinterpret his words by getting hung up on a single notion that avoids his points entirely. Two glaring misconceptions are of him being a nihilist and a pessimist. Why? I would relate it to an issue I also find very common in comedy, whether it be with stand-up comedians or comedic authors, is the use of double entendres, sarcasm, and ironic musing. These expressive tools seem to be incredible variables of interpretation that most simply pick pieces of the point and construe their own definition of the joke. George Carlin was a master at crafting jokes with such incredibly specific language and silences that seeing him live was like listening to one of the most amazing concertos ever composed. Yet still, many in the crowd would laugh at punch-lines that were, quite literally, them. It was something that simply didn’t make sense to me. These jokes weren’t ones that made jest of the idiotic things we all do, or those character flaws we hate but can take a step back to laugh at; these were points that attacked the views that defined these peoples entire existence and outright said ‘You are stupid as are your views’. So I would listen to what people said, or have discussions with others, and primarily found that people literally made their own jokes from portions of his, leaving out what should have caused an internal or external conflict. They would write off his attacks with “he is a comedian” or simply disassociate those parts. In the next breath, they would condemn politicians, news anchors and people for unbelievably minor attacks in comparison. While I have many theories as to why they do this, I don’t know the reality of where this disconnect exists, but I believe it is certainly routed in a form of denial. I bring this up because Nietzsche’s work has parts that are written from different perspectives, and can easily be taken out of context or incorrectly as the "punch-line" is being ignored. I believe people do the same with Nietzsche as they do with Carlin, or religion; they pick and choose components of the work to create their “Nietzsche”, which tends to be something very different from the original. While this is a common occurrence in arts, politics, philosophy, I feel it is usually not to the same degree. I had hope that it would be different in class than in general, however I feel that many still did just that.

Understanding master morality and slave morality is important, however it seemed that the majority of the material focused on “slave” and “master”, and how the slaves had morals as they were the opposition of the immoral masters who are simply tyrants of evil. I do not miss the irony of my view of the situation and material in question either. To summarize the concept, for the sake of time, master morality and slave morality are not classes, they are mental guidelines that one sets for themselves due to one’s own biology at birth and/or nurture of upbringing; two types of moral compasses based on what righteousness you apply to your life. This with the concept of will to power (not will to might) is often misconstrued I believe. The will to power is, while ever changing through his work, the progression is that of self-mastery, not dominance of all and tyrannical dictatorship. This is where I wished we could have gone into the concept of the ubermensch, or over man. 

To me, this was one of the most important prose to understand Nietzsche. It defines what he means by eternal occurrence which is living your life in a manner you would happily say “yes, I would live that life over and over again”. It shows his optimism and fear of the possibilities of evolution, as well as his point being that it is something in our control as it derives of our choices in life and our passion for life. You see this with the contrast of the ubermensch and the last man. The ubermensch is simply the idea Zarthustra presents, one he presents as an optimistic future of what man can become. He is happy, loves those who love themselves truly, not egotistically, those who give nothing to others and expects nothing from others because the fruits of their labor provides as does that of the others. This man has a virtue, not virtues, he hones his craft to master his virtue rather than distract himself with many. He gives his life to this virtue thus becoming his destiny (create your own destiny). He is generous, by his own nature, not because he seeks it. He has no interest in a life beyond, but cares to have his feet grounded on the Earth, and loves this planet of life unconditionally! Most importantly, he is not the ubermensch, he is man that loves life, creativity, self-mastery, and understands that the ubermensch is simply the idea of greatness, not the goal, as Zarathustra later alludes to when he realizes a number of his own mistakes such as living in the past. The last man is the warning, the lazy being that simply exists because “I am” (utilitarian criticism). No aspiration, no care or passion for experiencing life. He is the goal of the homebody, the talentless and simply “empty”. He does not see this world, but looks beyond it while he dies on this world and gives nothing to this world. The idea of the ubermensch is the spirit (so to speak) of master-morality, while the last man is life without master-morality. The slave-morality is the herd mentality of the people who laugh at the concept and ask to be the last man; it is the device that leads to ruin. These are leaders, nobleman, the faithful, etc; not slaves.
              

  Seeing these points make clear the concepts we seemed to get stuck on in class, which lead us to a continuous loop of misunderstanding. Will to “power”, is not simply “might is right”, it is self-power, or self-empowerment. It is understanding the confines ("fate") of your birth and upbringing and using the tools you have to master a virtue you love, to love every breath you have and cherish the moment, to seek knowledge and become who you are. His praise of Johann Von Goethe throughout his writings shows his adoration for the importance Goethe put in his craft and how much of himself he gave to his virtue, his art. Strength, and physical strength are but parts of the whole, not the whole.

I don’t criticize for the sake of degrading the efforts put in, or to discredit or belittle; quite the contrary. I do so because I love the beauty of Nietzsche’s prose and think it is a travesty if the beauty is missed. I wish others to see it in the proper light, that being a work of optimism, self-empowerment and an undying love for life (for so long as one is remembered). This can be done even if you don’t agree with his points.

Was Kierkegaard Truly The Person He Claimed, Or Simply A Projection Of What He Wished Others To See Him As?

In terms of Kierkegaard’s view of subjectivity and passion and how they are essential to the “existence” of a person, to generalize the complexity of the whole as a means to lead a point, is a point of view that I could not agree with much more than I do. My complication of enjoying the arguments of Kierkegaard has never come from his views of how one should arrive to decide who they are, or that of the lack of passion that derives from birth entitlements, status, or simply any sense of self that derives from the occurrence of birth. In most every regard, I agree with his points of essentially deciding who you are from an inward perspective. I find conflict in the fact that his leap of faith concluded in a continued lateral stagnation of remaining Christian.

Perhaps this will be seen as simply attacking the fact that he did not renounce his faith, or that enlightenment and an honest inward view of self can only conclude in ones loss of faith. In that regard, I can only say it is entirely wrong in my intent, and hopefully that notion is let go while reading this in order to see this point from my intended meaning, rather than one of face value perception.

Through all of his works that I have read and studied, Kierkegaard is very open to criticize faith and state how most are not of true Christian faith as it comes with no internal conflict, subjective decisions of the morality they choose of the life they live, a complete lack of passion to truly care about “what” they believe life, morality, or simply faith is. Does one simply argue their faith in god because they can provide self-formulated “evidence” of the existence of omnipotence? Does that prove one has faith? Simply put, no. He screams against the notion as it lacks any inward anxiety of personal struggle with a true faith, a true personal relationship with “God”, one derived of your own decisions of what life is from how you perceive morality and experience.

Why does this raise my ire of his points which I agree with in terms of subjectivity bringing you to your own path of how you view life and death and what meaning you apply to where that path leads? Simple, I never felt he showed his anxiety or passion beyond simply proving he was a true Christian as he understood a philosophical approach better than “Christians”, as well as the Dialecticians such as Hegel (or Hegelians even). I always find, when I read his work, I agree with his points of an inward life, and the paradox of faith, I even agree with the leap of faith; yet I still feel such a massive disconnect with his passion. It took a few readings before I could accept this unsettling disconnect, as I had no issue that he “leaped” into the arms of his “God”, I had a problem that it is never clear what inward anxiety separated him from those he criticized and very heavily chastised or belittled for their birthright beliefs. Obviously he had inner turmoil, Fear and Trembling leads to his, more than likely, mimicking of the story of Abraham with his then wife to be Regine Olsen by sacrificing what he loved most in an earthly regard in order to devout his entire being to the love of his “God”. A true showing of faith. However, I see only a child born of a “cursed” father because of his (the fathers) sins against god (child out of wedlock, lords name in vain as a child, etc) who instilled a heavy religious mindset and spent his life flagellating himself for sins to a possible greater degree than his father is implied to have done. I see someone who shows more a fear that he is not devout enough, than someone who gave an honest subjective view of self in order to ever actually have a “leap of faith”. To make the point simple, I believe that while the views and critiques Kierkegaard proclaims are mostly fantastic, and a very good perspective when the subject of self and personal meaning is at discussion, I do not believe he was at all different from those he showed such a heavy disdain for. I feel of what I have studied thus far only show a man who has done an amazing job hiding his own fear of death and possible religious doubts behind a passionate wall of finger pointing and angst.

Again, I still have more to study, and perhaps others could guide me down a path of research that may shed some light on this being incorrect. However, I have been searching his works, and I have yet to find anything that shows me his faith was truly derived from a personal relationship from his own struggle with faith and self in the first place, beyond that of essentially being “more” of a “true” Christian. That bothers me.