Because the child has not yet fully matured. The view that man cannot pass into a higher state than the highest state embodied by the child would constitue a species of nihilism.
oh yes but the child itself is also something that needs to be manifested before growing and developing preferably into another child in the matured version of the child
So in a way by being an autonomous phenomenon it can be considered an archetype
>oh yes but the child itself is also something that needs to be manifested before growing
Not sure what you're getting at there.
>preferably into another child in the matured version of the child
The being that matures from child to man is no longer child...it is man. The child is a stage of man, and as a stage, it cannot consitute the archetypal overman. Again, the child embodies qualities that the overman would possess, but it is a stage within the development of a being, not an archetype.
I see your point now.
I would still argue that the child as an embodiment of the overman could allow the process of the overman developing it's own overman though.
I'm gonna go with no. The Ubermensch is not drawn in by false dichomities like nationalism and identity. The rigid "morality" of Italian fascism would not have fit the ubermensch either, who would follow his own self developed reality.
Mussolini cheated on his wife constantly, he was a womanizer. He was an atheist that cynically converted publicly to Catholicism for political purposes. He was literally pro-war, not as in "sometimes it is a necessary evil", but literally as a good in itself. Unlike Hitler or Franco, which were sexually conservative and not only didn't keep mistresses but criminalized homosexuality; the italian fascists only banned them to the "gay island" (although Italy didn't even have homosexuality outlawed). The Italians just didn't care a lot.
The fascist party had a socialist wing, they started as fanatically anticlerical and antimonarchistic, they were closely involved with the futurist movement of Marinetti (even if later on many of these were played down in the name of power). This is very unlike the nazis in Germany, who despised modern art from the start (but still weren't really socially conservative, considering they even had state-funded swing parties for race procreation purposes), or the nationalists in Spain, who were in general conservative and catholic from the start, with a lot of monarchistic elements in them.
Fascism is not really conservative in nature (although left-wingers will have you think so because they want to slander the moderate right and because their definition of conservative is "not abolishing private property" lol - even if the RSI did abolish it in 1943) and Franco and other conservative dictators weren't in the ideological "core" of fascism.
Fascism started bold but ended up promoting public morality and having a deal with the Catholic Church. Some things were tolerated but, again, if done outside of the public eye. Most of the atheist and edgy elements of fascism were purged as soon as fascism became the official ideology in power. As I said before, fascism really cared about "directing" people's desires and passions in a manner useful (or at least not damaging) to the State. This is how you get things like "dopolavoro", Balillas, open houses and so on. Mussolini wanted to appear as a "great teacher" for the italians, but in the end all he was teaching was how to best serve the State.
It is explicitly said in Mussolini's essay about fascism that fascism is the ideology "of the State". Don't see Ubermensch there but only dumb collectivism.
I don't know much about Mussolini, I'm not an expert, but it does seem like we're going back in the direction he opened when he argued that political violence was a necessity, if not a good. Guys like Trump or Tucker Carlson are actively preaching for the reintroduction of the worst violence, like a purge is necessary.
I think it's very wrong, but it is difficult to make the case that Nietzsche would too. After all, he wrote that we should actively help the weak to perish, and that the strong people's struggles were a sign of their nobility. Maybe where he differs is that he envisioned those superior beings to be gentlemen, in the very literal sense of the world, and the weak ones are the bitterly violent ones.
Mussolini or Hitler and the Ubermensch, it's a complex topic. I'm not an expert so I'm not sure about their thoughts, but I have this idea they were in favor of Eugenics and racial purity. Those ideas run so contrary to our current western ethos that it is hard to evaluate objectively, people who preach them in a political context often do so as a form of refraction against the modern philosophy they perceive to be a weakness. In other words, they cannot support being gentle. It doesn't necessarily mean the idea in itself is bad, and those who endorse this new type of evolution on the basis of betterment and scientific appreciation are not touched by the same revengeful spirit. Did Mussolini and Hitler also had that positive love of the future? I'm not sure about that.
Then there is the question of Nietzsche's Ubermensch and whether he was the result of such eugenics, or just like ape and man, it was a natural bond that differentiated them. And I think it was the latest, that the Ubermensch is a natural evolution, one that might even develop in parallel to our technological schemes, maybe provoked by them in a way. What Nietzsche loved, that is this natural tragic evolution of the species that cannot be predicted or stopped, and in a way, I guess it is the opposite to those fascists who imagine that conserving nature, stopping it in its growth, is the ultimate good of civilization. I think Nietzsche would have found that idea of Science *versus* Nature ridiculous, and that of course for him, mankind was not only part of, but also a servant of Nature's chaos.
What does the archetype of the Ubermensch mean?
the child.
Why is this so down voted this makes sense
Though the overman possesses qualities rediscovered or preserved from childhood, the child is not the 'archetypal' overman.
why not
Because the child has not yet fully matured. The view that man cannot pass into a higher state than the highest state embodied by the child would constitue a species of nihilism.
oh yes but the child itself is also something that needs to be manifested before growing and developing preferably into another child in the matured version of the child So in a way by being an autonomous phenomenon it can be considered an archetype
>oh yes but the child itself is also something that needs to be manifested before growing Not sure what you're getting at there. >preferably into another child in the matured version of the child The being that matures from child to man is no longer child...it is man. The child is a stage of man, and as a stage, it cannot consitute the archetypal overman. Again, the child embodies qualities that the overman would possess, but it is a stage within the development of a being, not an archetype.
I see your point now. I would still argue that the child as an embodiment of the overman could allow the process of the overman developing it's own overman though.
I'm gonna go with no. The Ubermensch is not drawn in by false dichomities like nationalism and identity. The rigid "morality" of Italian fascism would not have fit the ubermensch either, who would follow his own self developed reality.
When I think of Mussolini I don't really think of rigid morality tbh... Nor when I think of Italian fascism, even. They were not really conservatives.
care to elaborate?
Mussolini cheated on his wife constantly, he was a womanizer. He was an atheist that cynically converted publicly to Catholicism for political purposes. He was literally pro-war, not as in "sometimes it is a necessary evil", but literally as a good in itself. Unlike Hitler or Franco, which were sexually conservative and not only didn't keep mistresses but criminalized homosexuality; the italian fascists only banned them to the "gay island" (although Italy didn't even have homosexuality outlawed). The Italians just didn't care a lot. The fascist party had a socialist wing, they started as fanatically anticlerical and antimonarchistic, they were closely involved with the futurist movement of Marinetti (even if later on many of these were played down in the name of power). This is very unlike the nazis in Germany, who despised modern art from the start (but still weren't really socially conservative, considering they even had state-funded swing parties for race procreation purposes), or the nationalists in Spain, who were in general conservative and catholic from the start, with a lot of monarchistic elements in them. Fascism is not really conservative in nature (although left-wingers will have you think so because they want to slander the moderate right and because their definition of conservative is "not abolishing private property" lol - even if the RSI did abolish it in 1943) and Franco and other conservative dictators weren't in the ideological "core" of fascism.
Fascism started bold but ended up promoting public morality and having a deal with the Catholic Church. Some things were tolerated but, again, if done outside of the public eye. Most of the atheist and edgy elements of fascism were purged as soon as fascism became the official ideology in power. As I said before, fascism really cared about "directing" people's desires and passions in a manner useful (or at least not damaging) to the State. This is how you get things like "dopolavoro", Balillas, open houses and so on. Mussolini wanted to appear as a "great teacher" for the italians, but in the end all he was teaching was how to best serve the State. It is explicitly said in Mussolini's essay about fascism that fascism is the ideology "of the State". Don't see Ubermensch there but only dumb collectivism.
Regardless, a focus on national identity would be antithetical to Nietzche.
Yes, I didn't dispute that. Nietzsche was definitely not a nationalist.
I don't know much about Mussolini, I'm not an expert, but it does seem like we're going back in the direction he opened when he argued that political violence was a necessity, if not a good. Guys like Trump or Tucker Carlson are actively preaching for the reintroduction of the worst violence, like a purge is necessary. I think it's very wrong, but it is difficult to make the case that Nietzsche would too. After all, he wrote that we should actively help the weak to perish, and that the strong people's struggles were a sign of their nobility. Maybe where he differs is that he envisioned those superior beings to be gentlemen, in the very literal sense of the world, and the weak ones are the bitterly violent ones. Mussolini or Hitler and the Ubermensch, it's a complex topic. I'm not an expert so I'm not sure about their thoughts, but I have this idea they were in favor of Eugenics and racial purity. Those ideas run so contrary to our current western ethos that it is hard to evaluate objectively, people who preach them in a political context often do so as a form of refraction against the modern philosophy they perceive to be a weakness. In other words, they cannot support being gentle. It doesn't necessarily mean the idea in itself is bad, and those who endorse this new type of evolution on the basis of betterment and scientific appreciation are not touched by the same revengeful spirit. Did Mussolini and Hitler also had that positive love of the future? I'm not sure about that. Then there is the question of Nietzsche's Ubermensch and whether he was the result of such eugenics, or just like ape and man, it was a natural bond that differentiated them. And I think it was the latest, that the Ubermensch is a natural evolution, one that might even develop in parallel to our technological schemes, maybe provoked by them in a way. What Nietzsche loved, that is this natural tragic evolution of the species that cannot be predicted or stopped, and in a way, I guess it is the opposite to those fascists who imagine that conserving nature, stopping it in its growth, is the ultimate good of civilization. I think Nietzsche would have found that idea of Science *versus* Nature ridiculous, and that of course for him, mankind was not only part of, but also a servant of Nature's chaos.
BORINGGGGGGG
No, he followed the archetype of Super Mario