Was Nietzsche talking about the 2nd coming of Jesus?

[dimreepr]

What did he mean by the Übermensch?

Edited September 3, 2023 by dimreepr

[ollybach]

Jesus would be considered just a messenger, without any power except that given by god. Pure among sinners. But not an over arching power. If anything Übermensch would be referring to something with a greater power.

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, ollybach said:

Jesus would be considered just a messenger, without any power except that given by god. Pure among sinners. But not an over arching power. If anything Übermensch would be referring to something with a greater power.

What do you mean by something with a greater power?

My power is being a contrary pain in the arse... 😉

If I was invisible, I'd be with Frankie Boyle; and kick a mime artist to death...

[CharonY]

Nietzsche strongly rejected the idea or belief of Christian god as a source for morals (he was one of several philosophers using the pointed phrase "god is dead").

Nietzsche's Uebermensch is grounded in the concept of an idealized or humanity, but in contrast to Christianity, which is considered part of an other-wordly concept, this ideal is linked to the physical world (or "earth"). Nietzsche did keep it rather vague and for the most part it is not so much what the Uebermensch is, but quite a bit what it isn't. It is someone, who is not bogged down by what Nietzsche considered, outdated religions and associated moralities. It is about fulfilling potential and being what they are and forging their own ways, which suggests some form of individualism, without spelling out what the potential is, and what paths there should be. From what I remember, it is basically freeing oneself from the bindings of old historic/religious rule, without succumbing to nihilsm. I.e. replace religion (or similar crutches) with a sense of self-affirmation.

As such, I would have a hard time associate any of that with Jesus, as he would likely have little patience for Jesus (as he did with religious folks.) 

[Eise]

Wow, you know your Nietzsche! +1.

What in my opinion fails in your answer (especially for a 'Biology Expert'), is that Nietzsche was influenced by Darwinism. He saw mankind as a phase between beasts and the Übermensch:

Quote

 

I teach you the Übermensch [the Overman, the Superman]. Man is something that is to be surpassed. What have ye done to surpass man?

All beings hitherto have created something beyond themselves: [but] ye want to be the ebb of that great tide, and would rather go back to the beast than surpass man?

What is the ape to man? A laughing-stock, a thing of shame. And just the same shall man be to the Übermensch: a laughing-stock, a thing of shame.

Ye have made your way from the worm to man, and much within you is still worm. Once were ye apes, and even yet man is more of an ape than any of the apes. […]

Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Übermensch—a rope over an abyss. […] What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal…

 

But it seems he did not see it as something that just will happen according to natural selection, but as something man should strive for.

So to answer dimreepr's question: surely not literally, as CharonY noticed: Nietzsche was 'Antichrist'. But one can discuss how far Nietzsche was influenced by the very common idea of the prospect of salvation. Nearly every religion has a concept of salvation, and one could defend that Nietzsche presents an atheistic, naturalistic account of such salvation.

Edited September 4, 2023 by Eise

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, CharonY said:

Nietzsche strongly rejected the idea or belief of Christian god as a source for morals (he was one of several philosophers using the pointed phrase "god is dead").

Indeed, but was he rejecting the idea of a jesus?

The parable of a madman, in my opinion meant that without god humanity was without a rudder, or a source of enlightening and that the Übermensch, would fill the gap; "cometh the hour cometh the man".

@Eise +1

 

[Steve81]

On 9/3/2023 at 8:18 AM, dimreepr said:

What do you mean by something with a greater power?

IMHO, the greatest power humans possess: the mind. See the movie Idiocracy for how that could play out. Spoiler alert, he was merely intelligent enough to realize you probably shouldn't water plants with Gatorade. 

[CharonY]

9 hours ago, Eise said:

Wow, you know your Nietzsche! +1.

What in my opinion fails in your answer (especially for a 'Biology Expert'), is that Nietzsche was influenced by Darwinism. He saw mankind as a phase between beasts and the Übermensch:

But it seems he did not see it as something that just will happen according to natural selection, but as something man should strive for.

So to answer dimreepr's question: surely not literally, as CharonY noticed: Nietzsche was 'Antichrist'. But one can discuss how far Nietzsche was influenced by the very common idea of the prospect of salvation. Nearly every religion has a concept of salvation, and one could defend that Nietzsche presents an atheistic, naturalistic account of such salvation.

Yes, I should have waited for someone with actual knowledge (i.e. you) to comment on that. While I am aware of Darwinistic influences, it was a long time ago when I read Nietzsche. While his anti-religious stance left a lasting impression (must be around high school/Abitur) I was a bit worried that my memory might conflate bits that should be attributed to his sister (and an overall social-darwinistic view).

And I agree, the idea of some sort of salvation or transcendence is very palpable in his writing (again, based on my limited understanding).

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, but was he rejecting the idea of a jesus?

The parable of a madman, in my opinion meant that without god humanity was without a rudder, or a source of enlightening and that the Übermensch, would fill the gap; "cometh the hour cometh the man".

@Eise +1

 

But here you will need to define what you think an "idea of a Jesus" is. In the Christian religious sense, no. But if you mean Jesus as as stand-in for an enlightened (whatever that may be) person, then perhaps but specifically for Nietzsche the wording might be awkward. One big difference (again, in my mind) beside the organized religion part is that Jesus gathered followers whereas Nietzsche was also preaching to some degree, but focused on individualism.

While I agree, that in the parable Nietzsche establishes that without the "sun (i.e. religion)" as a guiding post, there is a need to find an alternative (or else being lost in nihilism). 

But as such, I semi-disagree that the Uebermensch fills the role of the god.  The reasons is that phrasing could imply another sole source of hierarchical morality. Rather, the idea alludes to an human ideal that folks should strive towards. The gap would not be filled by a being, but by humanity. A new village has to be constructed in which the villagers remove themselves from using outdated (and objective) morals but rather define it anew. 

[Eise]

14 hours ago, CharonY said:

Yes, I should have waited for someone with actual knowledge (i.e. you) to comment on that.

No, no, maybe I should have said, I couldn't have formulated it better than you did. My study is already a long time ago, so my concrete (historical) knowledge of philosophers has slowly diminished. And Nietzsche was not my specialty. But what one doesn't lose so fast, is, if one call it such, a philosophical mentality. 

14 hours ago, CharonY said:

I was a bit worried that my memory might conflate bits that should be attributed to his sister (and an overall social-darwinistic view).

I think it is easy to distinguish Nietzsche from his sister's deformation of his philosophy: his sister identified 'Arians' (Germanics) with the Übermensch. And Nietzsche's 'Ansatz' was individualistic, not collectivist.

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, CharonY said:

Yes, I should have waited for someone with actual knowledge (i.e. you) to comment on that. While I am aware of Darwinistic influences, it was a long time ago when I read Nietzsche. While his anti-religious stance left a lasting impression (must be around high school/Abitur) I was a bit worried that my memory might conflate bits that should be attributed to his sister (and an overall social-darwinistic view).

And I agree, the idea of some sort of salvation or transcendence is very palpable in his writing (again, based on my limited understanding).

But here you will need to define what you think an "idea of a Jesus" is. In the Christian religious sense, no. But if you mean Jesus as as stand-in for an enlightened (whatever that may be) person, then perhaps but specifically for Nietzsche the wording might be awkward. One big difference (again, in my mind) beside the organized religion part is that Jesus gathered followers whereas Nietzsche was also preaching to some degree, but focused on individualism.

While I agree, that in the parable Nietzsche establishes that without the "sun (i.e. religion)" as a guiding post, there is a need to find an alternative (or else being lost in nihilism). 

But as such, I semi-disagree that the Uebermensch fills the role of the god.  The reasons is that phrasing could imply another sole source of hierarchical morality. Rather, the idea alludes to an human ideal that folks should strive towards. The gap would not be filled by a being, but by humanity. A new village has to be constructed in which the villagers remove themselves from using outdated (and objective) morals but rather define it anew. 

I think he may have realised, that the teaching's doesn't need a God to be valid, and that a 2nd coming (for want of a better phrase) is just someone like Jesus, Buddha et al, and would convince a lot of people to be content with their life; as I think the famous quote in the letter to his sister refers to, where he explains why he has to explore the truth of God and that she's allowed to be content.

20 hours ago, Steve81 said:

IMHO, the greatest power humans possess: the mind. See the movie Idiocracy for how that could play out. Spoiler alert, he was merely intelligent enough to realize you probably shouldn't water plants with Gatorade. 

Noted... 😣

[dimreepr]

5 hours ago, Eise said:

I think it is easy to distinguish Nietzsche from his sister's deformation of his philosophy: his sister identified 'Arians' (Germanics) with the Übermensch. And Nietzsche's 'Ansatz' was individualistic, not collectivist.

She might think he gave her permission too.

[dimreepr]

@Orion1 I'm waiting... 🧐

[ImplicitDemands]

Quote

 

The Übermensch is someone who has "crossed over" the bridge, from the comfortable "house on the lake" (the comfortable, easy, mindless acceptance of what a person has been taught, and what everyone else believes) to the mountains of unrest and solitude.

 

 

 

[Peterkin]

On 9/3/2023 at 7:37 AM, dimreepr said:

What did he mean by the Übermensch?

A superior form of man; a perfect self-consistent being whose vitality and creativity are not bound by petty limitations; a man in no need of psychological crutches, illusions or delusions (like the supernatural); whose intellect and will are beyond common moral constraints or common human concerns. The superman doesn't need saving; he has no sins to repent and no gods to answer to. Transcendence of the 19th century human specimen does not require redemption; it just mean moving beyond, to the next phase.  

Edited April 30 by Peterkin

[dimreepr]

14 hours ago, Peterkin said:

A superior form of man; a perfect self-consistent being whose vitality and creativity are not bound by petty limitations; a man in no need of psychological crutches, illusions or delusions (like the supernatural); whose intellect and will are beyond common moral constraints or common human concerns. The superman doesn't need saving; he has no sins to repent and no gods to answer to. Transcendence of the 19th century human specimen does not require redemption; it just mean moving beyond, to the next phase.  

You had me up until my bolded part, the context of his thinking, until the tragic death of his father; the truth he found so ugly and frightening was 'the death of god'.

I think the ubermensch he had in mind, was the person that could create the necessary psychological crutches for the so called 'herd'; of which we are all a part. That we're not all born equal, is in some ways literally true and seemingly obvious, we've all seen the village idiot who's happy to just stand at the side of the road waving at passing traffic; for me, and I think N, he would be like john the baptist, Jesus (no one special) was the one person who got the lesson and he happened to be really good at PR.

IOW the ubermensch was just a lucky guy with the right skillset.

[Peterkin]

49 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

for me, and I think N, he would be like john the baptist, Jesus (no one special) was the one person who got the lesson and he happened to be really good at PR.

Please leave the poor man alone! He had no use for religion and he still has no use for religion, and you will not succeed in making him religious. He was trying to give people a meaning for life, a goal to strive for, rather than the despair he expected them to fall into when their gods are proved illusory. 

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Please leave the poor man alone!

When did I say he was a poor man?

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Please leave the poor man alone! He had no use for religion and he still has no use for religion, and you will not succeed in making him religious. He was trying to give people a meaning for life, a goal to strive for, rather than the despair he expected them to fall into when their gods are proved illusory. 

How do you persuade the village idiot that it's not fun to wave at the car's? It doesn't matter what illusion or delusion you choose, if you're content with the result.

For instance, if you imagine the bad guy who forced you to stop waving at the traffic, got his comeuppance; most of us would be happy with that, for those that aren't, an illusion that it's a bad thing to do may stop them from negging a reasonable post... 😉

[Peterkin]

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

When did I say he was a poor man?

Things don't necessarily only become true when you say them. Nietzsche suffered from poor physical and mental health, was lonely and misunderstood all his life, unloved and far too intelligent for his environment. I can feel sorry for him if i want to.

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

How do you persuade the village idiot that it's not fun to wave at the car's? It doesn't matter what illusion or delusion you choose, if you're content with the result.

  By all means, he should keep waving. Why is this troubling your mind in connection to either Nietzsche or the putative second coming of a putative Jesus? 

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Things don't necessarily only become true when you say them. Nietzsche suffered from poor physical and mental health, was lonely and misunderstood all his life, unloved and far too intelligent for his environment. I can feel sorry for him if i want to.

OK, that's two negs for two reasonable post's, are you offended or insulted by my conjecture?

What makes you think I want people to feel sorry for him? These arguments are really very weak indeed.

I merely provided context that I think lends credence to my premise, his early life was steeped in a belief in the god of his father's teaching, which he was entirely happy with until his fathers very painful death. 

17 hours ago, Peterkin said:

By all means, he should keep waving. Why is this troubling your mind in connection to either Nietzsche or the putative second coming of a putative Jesus? 

My point is, sigh 🙄, the village idiot is perfectly content with his lot, he doesn't even care that we call him the village idiot; which is a really neat fit with the madman parable I mentioned earlier in this thread and whomsoever Jesus actually was, which is also an irrelevance to my premise; someone inspired the book and it seems was inspired by who many thought was an equivalent of 'the village idiot' or <insert idiom here>.

[Peterkin]

9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

OK, that's two negs for two reasonable post's, are you offended or insulted by my conjecture?

No. I simply disagree with it. (I don't give negative points)

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What makes you think I want people to feel sorry for him?

I don't need your permission to feel sorry for someone. 

12 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

the village idiot is perfectly content with his lot, he doesn't even care that we call him the village idiot

We don't. You do. Repeatedly, and I don't need your permission to find that characterization annoying. And he was entirely irrelevant to the topis. If intellectually challenged people are happy believing nonsense or making useless gestures, nobody's trying to stop them. 

But that doesn't change the fact that Nietzsche didn't predict a second coming and was hostile to religion generally. It's not hard to believe whatever your father says when you're 4 years old. Most people don't get disillusioned with their parents' religion until age 10 or 12. Some just keep waving at cars till they die, and that's all right too. 

[dimreepr]

22 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

We don't. You do. Repeatedly, and I don't need your permission to find that characterization annoying. And he was entirely irrelevant to the topis. If intellectually challenged people are happy believing nonsense or making useless gestures, nobody's trying to stop them. 

Again point well missed, who are you to say what they believe in is nonsense, that seems arrogant to me, is what you believe truer?

In the words of Jimmy Carr "there are two types of idiot in this question, those who believe the bible is litterally true and those who believe religion has no value".

Edited May 2 by dimreepr

[Peterkin]

45 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

In the words of Jimmy Carr "there are two types of idiot in this question, those who believe the bible is litterally true and those who believe religion has no value".

He's the village idiot in your story? Okay. The bible isn't nonsense: it's a collection of historical records, ancient legal codes, anecdotes, family sagas, scraps of mythology, rants by prophets, morality tales, the narrative of a people the way they wished to depict themselves, and added on as an afterthought, the story of a character who may have been an individual reformer or a composite of many. It includes examples of excellent literature, as well as numbingly tedious census lists. 

Those who don't believe the supernatural nonsense can still be aware of the value religions have for believers.

45 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

is what you believe truer?

Obviously.  But that wasn't the issue here.

My objection is not to your beliefs but to your projecting them onto Nietzsche. 

Edited May 2 by Peterkin

[dimreepr]

44 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

My objection is not to your beliefs but to your projecting them onto Nietzsche. 

What makes you believe that?

 

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

What makes you believe that?

I said nothing about what I believe. I responded to your OP title and your posts.

But I'm stopping now.