Is it correct to say that in order for the Nietzschean Ubermensch to obtain moral autonomy 'beyond good and evil' he should live his life as if his existence was a work of art?
Not exactly. That's more along the lines of his Birth of Tragedy thinking. He had grown out of it by Zarathustra.
>The dream—and diction—of a God, did the world then seem to me; coloured vapours before the eyes of a divinely dissatisfied one.
>Good and evil, and joy and woe, and I and thou—coloured vapours did they seem to me before creative eyes. The creator wished to look away from himself,—thereupon he created the world.
>Intoxicating joy is it for the sufferer to look away from his suffering and forget himself. Intoxicating joy and self-forgetting, did the world once seem to me.
>This world, the eternally imperfect, an eternal contradiction's image and imperfect image—an intoxicating joy to its imperfect creator:—thus did the world once seem to me.
>Thus, once on a time, did I also cast my fancy beyond man, like all backworldsmen. Beyond man, forsooth?
>Ah, ye brethren, that God whom I created was human work and human madness, like all the Gods!
Greek tragedy is still an example of the Dionysian affirmation of suffering, though.
You should just read him. It's not as hard as everyone says and it's really fun.
The will to power is basically just the urge to destroy and create, because that's what the world is: a constant state of change, destroying and creating. That's Nietzsche's proposed meaning of life, as opposed to previous thinkers, who's meaning of life a bunch of things that are "beyond this world," but Nietzsche loved the world and knew that it was all there was, so his meaning of life was what the world gave us.
The ubermensch is the full potential of what he later calls the will to power. His opposite is the last man is a nihilist who would rather binge-watch netflix and is amazingly common.
In a lot of ways, Nietzsche is being the opposite of christianity. The alternative to heaven that he proposes is the eternal recurrence - terrifying to a last man, exciting for an ubermensch.
No, it is not. But then again, Nietzschean thought has space for pretty much anything if you stretch it wide enough. Living "beyond" the good and evil does not mean transforming our reality into something like the realm of art, where values and morals only exist as an "element of design", quoting Wilde - Purposed to aesthetically please us in what is essentially a form of advanced hedonism.
That way of living is a far better description of the Nietzschean "last man" than it is of the Ubermensch; The last man is, deeply, a nihilist. All values, and the concept of a value, are rejected by him, leading him to a life revolved around sensations and pleasure.
The Ubermensch, according to Nietzsche, overcomes nihilism. While living beyond "good and evil" - The way of thought western society's moral values are built upon, and indeed rejecting all previous values, moral ones included, the Ubermensch evaluates reality by himself: creating new values, fighting for them and evolving them. This creation of values is based on living true to your one, strongest will - the will to power. The Ubermensch does not live to experience, or for any aesthetic reason, he lives to chase Nietzschen power, his values must be the expression of what he believes to be powerful, and that could take him to great heights. This way, the problems in the concept of a value which lead to its rejection are overcomed.
I hope this is not too much of a mess.
"The alternative to heaven that he proposes is the eternal recurrence - terrifying to a last man, exciting for an ubermensch."
This is what i have felt my whole life, not the need for an afterlife, but the need for a life where i could focus on architecture, followed by one where i could dance, or when where i could become president.
Hey not really completely related to the thread but I was hoping for a Sartre or a Nietzsche thread. First Sartre believes that humans are doomed to be free but he's also a Marxist which is an authoritarian type of political view. Why would be Marxist if he believed that humans have free will? I don't get it. Also Nietzsche believes that humans don't have free will except when they're ubermenschen which usually only happens when they are deeply depressed. Why would he be far right if he doesn't believe that humans want to be free and for the most part can't be free?
>but he's also a Marxist which is an authoritarian type of political view. Why would be Marxist if he believed that humans have free will? I don't get it.
hmm, seems as though you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. try reading a book next time, before posting. thanks.