Phil 1301-024 Erickson Simon Roig

Nietzsche’s overman is rejected by the people of his time because they place no value on

chaos, lack of morality, self-loathing, lack of esteem for a higher power, the embrace for all

things “negative”. Zarathustra lives in a time where the unknown becomes this mysterious,

ethereal infatuation in the minds of men which they seek to satisfy by heeding the poison-mixers

—those who profess to know they key to eternal salvation and what lies in the realm of the

afterlife. Zarathustra warns against this with much zeal but is mainly disregarded by his

audience. He encourages them to break the old tablets and create new ones; ones that will bear

meaning in relation to their lives and truly guide them in the ways of the earth. Zarathustra

advises to take risks, to embark on adventures and journeys, to experience loss, to question the

norm, to face the abyss, to distance oneself from the flies in the market; conversely he speaks

against being domesticated, conformist, complacent, self-absorbed, worshippers of moderation.

This last man, the antithesis of the overman, is an exemplary member of the flock. He will do

anything necessary to avoid the poles that will surely distinguish him as an individual with a will

to power and very defined drives. He will practice everything in moderation to maintain the

balance that is the jail to his soul. Nietzsche understood meaning through struggle and the

refinement of the worthless through fire.

Nietzsche poses a great question when he speaks of the demon that would present to one

the scenario of having to relive one’s life identically over and over again: would we welcome

that thought and delight in it or would be gnash our teeth and curse the messenger? I find great

strength in this paragraph because it awakens people from their illusion of safety and makes

them realize the gravity and momentousness of every breath we breathe. That paragraph inspires

us to seek our happiness, or our will, in every moment and not shun it by preferring the comfort

of our sedentary, mass-culture and institution-serving lives.

 Nietzsche writes of the admirable and rare art that is being able to embody all the

qualities that nature has equipped us with and use them in a way that will masterfully arrange

them so that the presentation becomes “an ingenious plan.” His philosophy of love of all, as

described by “amor fati,” is displayed in this excerpt from Joyful Wisdom when he writes, “…

until everything appears artistic and rational, and even the weaknesses enchant the eye…”

There is immense depth in the content of that thought when one realizes the glory of mankind as

raw and uncensored. The later man is obsessed with perfection, but not a perfection that answers

to the individual will but a collective drive for herd utility. It is clear that through this idea of

perfection, which is based on a template set by mass culture and the ruling elite, men lead their

lives without ever acknowledging their potential simply because they have never even dared

question the extent of their substance. They would rather settle at the first sign of success and

stick with it, hoping that this approval of a shallow, meaningless state will continue. Meanwhile,

a hoard of subjective truth is blatantly ignored and unconsciously left for dead, all for the sake of

reputation and tetris-like functionality. Few will grow to appreciate and love their imperfections,

and display them in a way in which they become art exhibits for the betterment and inspiration of

all. The asinine belief that anything good could ever arise without “flaws” is simply an outdated

tablet written by those noble, aristocratic scum that wish to decimate the rest of humanity.

Nietzsche speaks of an eternal recurrence that “does not expend itself but only transforms

itself,” which is eloquently written in Will to Power and backed by physics in the conservation of

energy. Once again this reaffirms his belief that all qualities, aspects, perspectives, drives, and

forces are not only admirable but necessary for life as we know it to occur. His preference for

the strong-willed is Nietzsche’s subjective outlook on life, which is sound in reasoning as far as

my personal experience leads me to believe, yet it should be viewed in context with the spectrum
of things, such that “… even the sphinx has eyes—and consequently there are many kinds of

‘truths,’ and consequently there is no truth.”

A quality that I admire in Nietzsche is his admission that it is futile to throw a dart of

truth onto a dartboard and call it objective. This “true” world of forms that previous

philosophers had attempted with much effort to uncover, Nietzsche has “abolished… with the

true world we have also abolished the apparent one… (the) end of the longest error; high point of

humanity.” It is clear that he realizes that as far as human beings are concerned, the only truths

we can rely on are the relationships we have to other bodies in the space we occupy. The

relationship we have to the objective is truth, however unappealing it may seem to the zeit geist.

“But what after all are man’s truths?—They are his irrefutable errors.”

Morality, according to Nietzsche, hinders us from experiencing our human essence by

curving individuality to fit the homogeneity of the herd. Historically it began with the higher

rungs of society who assigned their values according to the impact the world placed on their

lives. The plebes, having less access to language and information, diverged off this morality and

forged its own, placing more value on humility and servitude rather than the power to conquer

and create. Both, however, are described by Nietzsche as functions of the herd and a usefulness

that is “…perhaps precisely the most fatal stupidity by which we shall one day be ruined.” It is

important to note that no morality, regardless of socioeconomic status, is to be observed as

superior to another, but all are simply algorithms to carry on the perceived collective direction of

humanity, which undermines our individual potential for sculpting and creating meaning.

The connection between consciousness and language is one that cannot be ignored,

according to Nietzsche. The default consciousness that we are equipped with from the get-go

allows us to think constantly and realize our needs. The consciousness that is aware of itself as if

by mirroring only comes into being when we communicate with others through language. The
latter, as personal as we may like to believe it may be, is abstract and objective, failing to

identify our subjective nature and very personal actions to the words that we assign. When using

language we delve more into the collective consciousness that is present for the sake of social

interaction. This seems like a very disconcerting thought when viewed from a perspective that

wishes to convey meaning from one to another not only effectively but entirely accurately, and

the reality is that no matter how well the communication is executed, the entire meaning will not

be properly transferred. In a more “positive” light, meaning can be conveyed almost perfectly

when both communicators exhibit a strong will and determination, along with the proper

language skills to bridge consciousness.

“…We discover that the ripest fruit, where society and the morality of custom at least

reveal what they have simply been the means to: then we discover that the ripest fruit is the

sovereign individual, like only to himself, liberated again from morality of custom, autonomous

and supramoral.” Throughout some past years my life has progressed into aiming more and

more towards this goal, from being a young, oblivious kid to the attainment of knowledge which

shed light on the fact that our lives are ours only and should be taken as such, seeking the will as

it sees fit. This past week my traveling, crusty, dumpster-diving, train-hopping friend Matt came

into town to visit with me and it filled me with contentment. We spent the majority of each day

together, reminiscing old times, having some laughs at the expense of mass-culture and its

injustices, and delighting in every alcohol we could afford. In hindsight I don’t regret a single

moment of it: if I had to go back, there is not a single detail that I would change, yet I could

have blown Matt off and told him to occupy himself while I wrote an impending philosophy

paper, and the reason I didn’t is why I found myself scrambling to put one together. “What does

your conscience say? ‘You should become him who you are.’”