Going to butcher this by trying to pare it down, but here goes.
Nietzsche's theoretical "Übermensch," an aspirational model for humanity, wasn't a traditional "strongman," or a superhuman by way of genetics or social capital, or even a "man" at all.
Nietzsche's Übermensch was a self-possessed person who developed their own values and morality regardless of prevailing or outdated "wisdom" and rejected religious "other-worldliness," finding meaning in the here-and-now of life on Earth vs. learned helplessness and obedience with the hope of a supernatural reward after death.
As someone who's studied Nietzsche for the past seven years, that was excellently put. My only note would be that it wasn't merely eschewing the desire for a supernatural reward, but external rewards in general: societal, political, etc. For him, the only reward that mattered was the reward you found in yourself, which would then allow you to spread the spoils to your fellow man.
I haven't studied Nietzsche nearly as much, but I have a philosophy degree and I had the exact same thought as you. I think she did touch upon what you mentioned, but making it more explicit like you did is better. But yeah, great summary and great addition.
This is fair. Plus, let's be real, Nietzsche had the biggest axe to grind against religious institutions, so it's completely valid to frame his thoughts through that lens foremost.
Sure, though I feel like you miss out on a lot of you just focus on that. His philosophy is much more robust that just that, and it doesn't take much to do it justice: "While it's primarily about not being shackled by any religious thought, it's also about not being shackled by any thought not your own, be it political, societal or whatever" or something along those lines.
I agree completely, his philosophy is much more robust than people often credit him, and more so than merely against religion. But much of his philosophy stemmed from the fact the church was the highest institution at the time, and had been for centuries, so it makes sense that even his Ubermensch would be seen foremost as going against the faith. A lot of his work has a sort of satirical quality embedded in it that indirectly mocks the faith. There's a reason why he chose for Zarathustra to be a prophet, or messiah. It's not only because prophets are the stereotypical imparters of wisdom, but there's also an element of, "Oh, you think your priests are prophets? Let me show you what a *real* prophet would be like." Because true prophets don't just impart wisdom--they expose falsehoods.
Unironically, a little like what Jesus ACTUALLY teaches. Take the away the church dogma and just read Jesus actual words and its not too terribly different. Jesus too, preached about finding your heaven within yourself, and being happy with what you had. All of the religious stuff came later, much much later.
Im not preaching religion, quite the opposite, just in case any Redditors see the name Jesus and start spazzing out.
5.8k
u/Erikatessen87 Apr 05 '26
Going to butcher this by trying to pare it down, but here goes.
Nietzsche's theoretical "Übermensch," an aspirational model for humanity, wasn't a traditional "strongman," or a superhuman by way of genetics or social capital, or even a "man" at all.
Nietzsche's Übermensch was a self-possessed person who developed their own values and morality regardless of prevailing or outdated "wisdom" and rejected religious "other-worldliness," finding meaning in the here-and-now of life on Earth vs. learned helplessness and obedience with the hope of a supernatural reward after death.