>>1684062 >Never yet has there been an overman. Naked

You're both in over your heads.

>>1688925
just because i'm bad at expressing myself doesn't mean i'm wrong

Overman concept is simple, it's the above-human, improved-human, better-human, or human-to-come
I cringe when:
>People think Neitzsche thought himself the Superman
>People think Neitzsche saw any particular race of humans as the Superman

It's about improving the human and thus producing a creature that is better, like breeding different improved species of dogs.

>>1688937
Just because Nietzsche is good at expressing himself doesn't mean he's right.

>>1688945
Breeding has never produced a new species of dog. Over the thousands of years of breeding them. All dog breeds are the same species as wolf. Breeds are more analogous to races.

>>1688946
never said he was
>>1688945
>Overman concept is simple
it's that simple, but not that vague

nietzsche is explicit on the personality of the higher type of human from which the overman will come; solitary and secretive

>>1688963
>nietzsche is explicit on the personality of the higher type of human from which the overman will come; solitary and secretive
That doesn't make much sense, since the overman would be a new species. It would have to come from the type that reproduces a lot.

>>1688965
the higher type of man comes from the herd
the overman comes from the higher type

therefore the overman comes from the herd

>>1688977
A new species is made gradually, over thousands of millions of years. Unless the solitary and secretive man is reproducing in abundance for that long, I don't see how that would work.

>>1688984
*or millions

>>1688984
i think you're being too literal here

the overman is a psychological rather than a physical concept, nietzsche discusses it entirely in psychological terms

a breeding of the correct psychology would take less time than millions of years

>>1688999
It would still take a really long time to make being solitary and secretive make you more successful at reproducing.

>>1689003
the higher types aren't supposed to outbreed or replace man, they're supposed to be rare and rule over them

>>1688884
Nietzsche's overman is the next step of evolution of our species, here his idea of the last man goes hand in hand, my thought is that the overman is the machine and human shall be the laughing stock to the ubermentch just like the monkey is a laughing stock of man, its crystal clear why are you so confused

>>1689016
that is pretty clear though

>>1689006
The rulers are generally the people who can function really well socially. Even Napoleon' who was an autist socially, had a key to success in being very personable to his soldiers. Even groups of people who established themselves as ruling castes against the wishes of the masses, did it by being an extremely cohesive group with each other.

>>1689031
>The rulers are generally the people who can function really well socially.
no they've been the ones who can use military force/ religion to control the masses
>Even Napoleon' who was an autist socially
he acted like an autist because he could get away with acting like an autist, if you think he didn't know what he was doing you're very naive

>>1689040
>no they've been the ones who can use military force/ religion to control the masses
No, rulers who come to power always depend on some network of other people they are experts with socially. A lot more people come to power than just purely generals staging coups, you know, and even those generals can't be solitary and secretive, they have to inspire their soldiers with affection, and their fellow officers with loyalty. But coups coming to power are rare. Henry IV, for instance, came to power through a civil war, but he would have never have been able to do that if he couldn't network with all the nobility he needed support from.

>he acted like an autist because he could get away with acting like an autist
I'm talking about since long before he came to power, even when he was still in school

>>1689053
>No, rulers who come to power always depend on some network of other people they are experts with socially.
solitary doesn't mean autistic or antisocial to the point of autism, it's more of an independent attitude thing, going back to napoleon it's like being a savage almost animalistic person who can wear masks, at least to my understanding
>I'm talking about since long before he came to power, even when he was still in school
and he got away with acting like an autist then, you'll notice that he never acted like that towards his superior officers

>>1689062
>going back to napoleon
Napoleon couldn't wear a mask worth shit. If it weren't for the fact he was great with soldiers because of things like his charge with the flag, he would have never have gotten anywhere. Even Josephine turned him down despite being widowed, old and having kids, because she found him so repulsive--she only changed her mind later out of desperation.

>and he got away with acting like an autist then, you'll notice that he never acted like that towards his superior officers
Napoleon almost got court marshaled for going AWOL so much.

>>1689073
>Napoleon couldn't wear a mask worth shit.
he could wear masks that more or less worked
>If it weren't for the fact he was great with soldiers because of things like his charge with the flag, he would have never have gotten anywhere.
that doesn't require social skills
>Napoleon almost got court marshaled for going AWOL so much.
that's a really wide definition of autism you've got there, and the key word there is almost

you cannot pretend that napoleon was socially retarded or some kind of charismatic leader, you have to accept that he was a loner with great manipulative and mental talents

>>1689091
I accept he had great mental talents, and had a great deal of *soldierly* charisma. I don't accept that he could finely manipulate anyone. He was a Coriolanus, not a Richard III.

>>1689114
>I don't accept that he could finely manipulate anyone
he was a crude manipulator but he was talented manipulator

you can't pretend that he wasn't good at playing his subordinates off against one another and overawing them and he knew how to handle his superiors

so the point is that being a solitary person doesn't prevent you from being capable or more than capable of ruling people

>>1689053
It is the stillest words that bring the storm. Thoughts that come on doves feet rule the world.

>>1689125
>you can't pretend that he wasn't good at playing his subordinates off against one another
Since Talleyrand and Fouché helped screw him, I don't think so, no.

>>1689156
he was on his way out long before they betrayed him

like i'm not saying he was as good as professional intriguers but he was competent enough and he didn't lose power because he was socially retarded

>>1689031
rereading where we went off track, i think that saying the people who function really well socially will do well in society is a truism

>Even groups of people who established themselves as ruling castes against the wishes of the masses, did it by being an extremely cohesive group with each other.
i don't think that's even true, look at ancient greece for example, different peoples can have agreements with each other without being cohesive

>>1688984
When will this meme end? Change is spontaneous. It's either good and survives, or bad and dies out.
It doesn't take 6 billion years for evolution to happen.

And yes, you're too literal.