@Cdawgthreee

4 years ago

Feel free to debate me on this, and I would love to discuss the topic, but I don't think these criticisms of Nietzsche are valid. At 6:40 you ask how we can know what an Ubermensch is like without ever coming into contact with one. I believe this question is formed from the misconception of the Ubermensch being a definitive "ultimate goal" as you put it at 7:20. I find the Ubermensch to be better described as the next step in human development. It's a gradual change, not a definitive transformation. Nietzsche even says we have seen "glimpses" of the Ubermensch in humanity already, so these attributes would not be unknown to us. Nietzsche determines the attributes of the Ubermensch simply by observing the attributes of humanity that are most beneficial (like having a free mind versus a herd mentality or being focused on reality versus an afterlife). Imagine we existed as giraffes with short necks. If we observe giraffes with longer necks thriving in our environment, then our idea of an "ubergiraffe" would be a giraffe with a longer neck. The next part is my biggest criticism on your analysis of Nietzsche. Around 8:20 you make several comments all alluding to the idea that the only alternative to moral objectivity is moral subjectivity, and this is not true. You are forgetting about moral intersubjectivity, which is what I believe Nietzsche is talking about. Intersubjectivity is the belief that there is moral objectivity, but only in relation to each subjective goal. This means the Ubermensch will have a better grasp on morality than us without any established universal moral laws. This would most definitely bring about some conflict of interest, but conflict of interest does not constitute the need for a moral law. For example, if I need an object, but another person is in possession of said object, there is a conflict of interest. I could say my morally subjective opinion leads me to determine that the best course of action would be to kill the person and take the object. But, most likely, this will be objectively false because I then put myself at risk, damage my psyche, and I can no longer utilize this person as a future asset when I (probably) could've just offered money instead. An Ubermensch will know when killing ect. is necessary or beneficial and when it is not based on the situation, and not based on a law or an opinion (objectivity or subjectivity) therefore the world of the Ubermensch would not be one of chaos, as everyone would understand that creating chaos does not objectively help their subjective goal. Lastly, you mention "God is dead" as if it is Nietzsche advocating for the abandonment of the idea of God just because the Bible falls short in some areas. This is also incorrect. Nietzsche was describing what Christianity has done to the image of God. That is-- they distorted it so drastically to the point where people are turning to nihilism and abandoning the metaphysical idea of God altogether. Nietzsche was labeled by many scholars (and Wikipedia) as a pantheist, not an atheist. He accepted the idea of God, just not in the Judeo-Christian sense. Edit: Just fixed some grammatical errors.

82 |