Nietzsches Superman Essay

Nietzsche was a revolutionary author and philosopher who has had a tremendous impact on German culture up through the twentieth century and even today. Nietzsche's views were very unlike the popular and conventional beliefs and practices of his time and nearly all of his published works were, and still are, rather controversial, especially in On the Genealogy of Morals. His philosophies are more than just controversial and unconventional viewpoints, however; they are absolutely extreme and dangerous if taken out of context or misinterpreted. After Nietzsche's death it took very little for his sister to make some slight alterations to his works to go along with Nazi ideology.

Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche are two widely acclaimed philosophers due to the groundwork they made towards the philosophical principles of morality. However, even though they both have openly discussed their views, they have ended up contradicting each other. Kant implied that morality is not learned, but rather predestined, whereas Nietzsche alluded to a experience based morality, or one that is learned through actions and memories. Although these two men have accepted views of morality, the ideas of Nietzsche seem more applicable in relation to the present day; the world is constantly changing. There are two separate scenarios in which the issues of 'thou shalt not lie ' and 'thou shalt not steal, ' are morally assessed. The end results are supportive towards Nietzsche 's principles and detrimental towards Kant 's ideas. Overall, the moral concepts of Nietzsche will prevail as a result, illustrating the more probable use of his ideology.

Nietzsche goes deeper into describing the Superman and his relation to man saying “Man is something to be surpassed… All beings hitherto have created something beyond themselves.” This description specifically ties into the evolutionary undertones of Nietzsche’s stretch. Humanity, like other creatures, is meant to be surpassed by something greater and man is a stepping stone. Nietzsche takes this one step further making the comparison of ape to man to show the gap between Superman and Man. Specifically, he explains by asking “What is ape to man? A laughing stock, a thing of shame. And just the same shall man be to the Superman: A laughing stock, a thing of shame.” The use of ape as a point of reference greatly demonstrates how his stretch is evolutionary in a way. Nietzsche, through Zarathustra, continues to distinguish the kind of man that can bring about the Superman. He goes into what he loves about the man who strives for the greatness of humanity

But whence digging past the loud colours and the "it's-a-bird-it's-a-plane," generic, one realises the true face of Superman. He isn't super for his inhuman abilities or his capricious appearance, he isn't a true man for his strong build and his appealing features:  Superman is super because he's what everyone should aspire to be, and he is a man because he melds the world in a form of good and good only. For if Superman wanted to, he could rule the world and no one would be able to stop him. Superman is, literally, a god among men.  He has the power to sink entire continents and kill millions of people with ease, but he chooses to protect everyone, good or bad, no matter how insignificant and tiny the life is for nothing in return. Superman is a hero because he's there for everyone, never compromising his ideals and taking the high road to support those in need. This is despite the fact that he could basically be a god lording over others without much trouble, but instead chooses to serve and inspire. That is why he is a hero. Superman is the ultimate hero, and not just because he is the most powerful being on earth but for his integrity which sets him completely apart. One could constantly remark on how Superman looks for the best in everyone, how he is ultimately loyal and selfless, not even considering the fact that he could rule the world but chooses to serve is the greatest compliment you can

In this Commentary of sections 1-7 of essay two in Friedrich Nietzsche’s The Genealogy of Morals, I will give a brief overview of the text, to help with showing the content that the comment covers, the go deeper into the individual sections and relate them to Nietzsche’s way of thinking and also look into any problems or solutions offered by those arguments.

We have grown weary of man. Nietzsche wants something better, to believe in human ability once again. Nietzsche’s weariness is based almost entirely in the culmination of ressentiment, the dissolution of Nietzsche’s concept of morality and the prevailing priestly morality. Nietzsche wants to move beyond simple concepts of good and evil, abandon the assessment of individuals through ressentiment, and restore men to their former wonderful ability.

How important are moral values in our society? Moral values are defined as standards of what is right and wrong which governs the behaviour of an individual. “The Madman” by Friedrich Nietzsche disbands every conceived notion of moral behaviour based on religious justification and suggests that we should create our own morals and values, without the influence of religious sermon or text. In a similar manner, Adam Smith and Immanuel Kant demonstrates the same notions of moral values and liberty. Thus, Nietzsche's’ Madman is celebrating starting of a new modern society in which one must create their own morals and values, without guidance and the influence of religion.

Although the problem of the relationship between Nietzsche and metaphysics might seem to be a settled issue, this is in fact a quite complicated and fascinating problematic. The difficulty with this subject lies in the often unacknowledged ambiguity that the term ‘metaphysics’ exhibits in Nietzsche's writing, as this word assumes different nuances and connotations in different contexts. Therefore, if we can get past the usual rhetoric on the topic, we come to realize that Nietzsche addresses the topic of metaphysics in at least two distinct ways.

Nietzsche and Artaud seek a solution to the "passionate equation between Man, Society, Nature and Objects," both having suffering as the main motivation. In Nietzsche, suffering is the antinomic pair of Well-being, referred to as Happiness since the Enlightenment, and term used 679 times in eleven works, 182 times in Will to Power. Nietzsche's remedy is the liberation of the instincts, as Artaud requests, and this liberation must not be sought disconnected from their works, it must be modulated by the context with the other prescriptions. In Artaud, suffering refers to existential anguish or guilt-related anguish. The first as a result of the desire to live in

When reading Nietzsche, The Will to Power, he talks about both a “Metaphysical” and “Organic”. The metaphysical that everything from a rock to a person is “the will to power” same as animism, everything has power. I tend to like his theories on organic. Organic is the will to power is specifically related to all life, and only living life. He states on 37 (Spring-Fall 1887) that, “The repudiated world versus an artificially built "true, valuable” one (Nietzsche)”. Stating man has power, man has purpose, and man has ideas. Ideas like what makes a king powerful, is it his ideas or his army? He talks about, “Detached and idealistic, values, instead of dominating and guiding action, turn against action and condemn it.” Which Foucault talks about

“Suffering” is a word which carries negative connotations, used to incite pity, empathy or fear. Why would it not? Is suffering not simply agony, defined justly by the Oxford Dictionary as “the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship” (“Suffering)? Yet, we accept suffering as part of life, a fundamental aspect that defines living. Nietzsche tells us that the very act of living is suffering itself, but to survive is to find value in that suffering. Yet, what sort of value can be attached to an idea so negative? Pico Iyer’s editorial in the New York Times explores the value of suffering, likening suffering to passion and “[p]assion with the plight of other’s makes for ‘compassion’” (________________).I began to think upon the cohesive

Friedrich Nietzsche was a 19th-century German philosopher and held in regard amongst the greatest philosophers of the early part century. He sharpened his philosophical skills through reading the works of the earlier philosophers of the 18th century such as Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, Arthur Schopenhauer and African Spir; however, their works and beliefs were opposite to his own. His primary mentor was Author Schopenhauer, whose belief was that reality was built on the foundation of experience. Such as it is, one of his essays, Schopenhauer als Erzieher, published in 1874, was dedicated to Schopenhauer (Mencken, 2008). In the past two centuries, his work has had authority and influence in both

Humans need the appearance of some sort of structure to live. They need rules to live by to tell them whether or not they are living “right”, in a good way or a bad way. We humans have come up with many different ways to tell whether we are living right “right” or not. We have come up with all of the different types of religions and the different sets of morals , all of which change throughout history and time depending on and reflecting it’s episteme. How can any religion or set of morals be considered the “right one” when there has been no consistency with either? Both Feuerbach and Nietzsche have the same belief, that religions and morals are only a crutch that humans grab on to in order to give some meaning to the random assortment of life on earth. Both think that religion was a crutch for humans because of our inability to be perfect. Religions especially Christianity (Jesus) have their own destruction built in to them because of the humanity aspect. Though Feuerbach and Nietzsche agreed upon this they had very different opinions on how it would come about.

5. Discuss Nietzsche’s theory of “will to power” and “the innocence of becoming”. Does the hypothesis of the will to power successfully “debunk” traditional religion, morality, and philosophical claims to provide the “disinterested” or “objective” truth?

Whether you call him Kal-El, Clark Joseph Kent or the Man of Steel, fans and non-alike know him the world over as Superman. Recently, this iconoclastic character was reintroduced to a new generation with the film Man of Steel and so began for some a look back to another era where a bold new dawn of superhero action movies was born with Superman The Movie. An inevitable debate ensued about whether a modern, technologically advanced and possibly more faithful adaptation could outshine the original, with all its nostalgia, including an inimitable portrayal of Superman given by the late Christopher Reeve. My aim is to find out whether I still believe a man can truly fly or if he is just simply wearing a costume.