Quote: (11-27-2018 07:49 PM)Flux Wrote:
Quote: (11-27-2018 06:44 PM)Jefferson Wrote:
I love to read Schopenhauer, he is very good. However, he is nowhere near as creative or original as Nietzsche.
Nietzsche was appointed one of the youngest professors in history, in the German language world, for a reason. He was a bona fide genius.
Nietzsche goes deeper and more fearlessly than Schopenhauer.
Both are great of course.
Nietzsche described the superman as something to come out of evolution, but it's not, he was describing himself, or what he was almost, choosing Goethe as his superior. Evolution is over, we are a complete species.
Supermen are found throughout history and it can never be common, they have to be extremely rare.
Philosophers project themselves into their writings, always keep this in mind. Find those that are like you, because only they can help you.
That's not the full story flux. Yes, Nietzsche did inject a biological element into his Uebermensch, which is very poorly translated as Superman btw, it really represents an 'Ideal man', the old Overman is better, however, Nietzsche also had an intellectual element in mind. He described Lord Byron as an Uebermensch for example. And his whole point was that it was not the wellbeing of the whole species that mattered but those very few appearances of the Byron like characters. So he was aware of this. It was not a purely biological interpretation.
One can also interpret the Uebermensch as a product of what you as the individual can achieve if you overcome yourself. Much like game would do, some may argue.