"The higher man"

In "Beyond Good and Evil", Nietzsche talks about the higher man and how he is superior in virtually every way to the lower beings. Nietzsche is controversial in that he rejects egalitarianism and believes that a lot of people are just stupid scum who are only fit to be mindlessly entertained to stop them from causing trouble.

The higher man he seems to be talking about is a poet or a philosopher or somebody with a keen awareness who thinks and feels deeply, somebody immune to propaganda to a large degree, someone who questions. Most people claim that all souls are equal, but Nietzsche said these souls are just better and that it is in no way immoral for these people to manipulate the idiots for their own ends.

What do you guys think about this?

Simply by virtue of being in a philosophy forum, we here meet a lot of the higher man criteria...seeing as how the "lower orders" would call philosophy "gay" and go listen to some Soulja Boy. I'm not sure what to think of it...on the one hand, there are definite gaps in understanding between people (and subsequently in inner beauty), but on the other hand, you can't just trample somebody for being a fool...they could still be well-meaning and kind and all that.

Thoughts? Does a higher man exist or are we all equal, the "higher man" just being stronger in some areas?

Im deadly sure that there is a lot of "higher men"... but i dont think the fact we are "higher" gives us the right to use the fooler ones as tools for our own purposes.
Even because there are ones who are still "higher" than this "higher men" and so would regard them as idiots too... there is no end to "highness", so no level of "highness" can ensure one is at the "top" and thus can do whatever it wish.

Oh, I agree...I mean, we can't just trample over anyone who's lower. I suppose the issue was over whether or not these higher people are in fact simply superior to the lower orders and not merely more self-aware or spiritual or whatever. You seem to agree to an extent.

I don't really think Nietzsche was talking about a real hierarchy, though, more a "you're high or you're dirt" sort of thing. On or off the bus, really...seating doesn't matter so much.

In a perfect world no one would be "higher" than other, however, in the times we live people are manufactured to be "lower", to follow and not think, and it's very easy to manipulate them. It's clear that the people who are content or oblivious to the manipulation are not gonna change, these people are happy, or think they are happy. Knowing that these people are incapable of change of consciousness (like trying to convince someone that cannabis does not kill your braincells) it becomes the responsibility of a "higher" consciousness to manipulate them, because that is all you can do with them, into something that will lead them into a better standard of living and thinking. We have seen many of these "higher" individuals try and fail, because people just refuse to listen to a person who thinks differently. So now other "higher" people use the way people think to manipulate them into a lower standard of living and thinking. At this times topics like these sure go beyond good and evil :D

IDK I agree with the term "Higher man" but I think compassion,sympathy and empathy are true factors in ones supremacy....Not so much as needs or mandates but qualities that should be developed in enlightenment.True their are separations in thought but until it is harbored then I believe anyone on a higher plane would be unlucky;such as ourselves (with the obvious contradiction for were here conversing on said thoughts instead of harboring said knowledge and shielding it from the masses) . If that makes any sense,its a bit brief for I'm at work but I am planning on expanding upon the fact as soon as 6 hits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thecreator

IDK I agree with the term "Higher man" but I think compassion,sympathy and empathy are true factors in ones supremacy....Not so much as needs or mandates but qualities that should be developed in enlightenment.True their are separations in thought but until it is harbored then I believe anyone on a higher plane would be unlucky;such as ourselves (with the obvious contradiction for were here conversing on said thoughts instead of harboring said knowledge and shielding it from the masses) . If that makes any sense,its a bit brief for I'm at work but I am planning on expanding upon the fact as soon as 6 hits.

---

I agree with you, mostly. Someone like Iago (in Othello) couldn't really be considered higher if they're cold, empty and self-serving...there are people I know who, while perhaps not that classically intelligent, I would consider higher simply because their souls seem to be fashioned for kindness and a kind of ineffable spiritual purity. "Higher" has nothing whatsoever to do with IQ, I don't believe...I think it's all to do with awareness, depth, free thought, and the qualities you mentioned.

Well are my thoughts were pritty well mentioned. So I'll just try to summorize whats running threw my mind, even though they were pritty well said already..
1- I do think there is a higher power
2- Sure, he is superior but like was mentioned through different emotions like empathy aposed to arrogence and self-righteousness.. but although he is superior, he doesn't act superior
3- Just because people may be 'higher' then other, I know I still do it but its not right to take advantage of the dipshits in our community

.. It probibly would have been easier to say dito.. wut what fun would that be;)

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt

Does a higher man exist or are we all equal, the "higher man" just being stronger in some areas?

---

nietzsche's concept of the higher man tends to lack the same moral compass that nietzsche himself lacked. the higher man must be capable of seeing his own flaws and would therefore see that he is due no superior rights. the higher man sees no point in abusing lower species, there would be nothing to be gained and the very act would make him less than what he aspires to be. the higher man must be more than mere superior intelligence, he must be morally superior as well. what enlightened morality could justify treating his inferiors with anything less than benevolence? inherent in the higher man must be the desire to raise all others to that same state, without the desire to force change on those unwilling to take that leap.

the egalitarian ideal denies the possibility of the higher man and dooms us to mediocrity. the myth of universal equality is the product of the herd mentality, self-made victims feeding on the strength of the slightest show of superiority in an attempt to weaken it and force it to conform to the accepted norm of the masses. the higher man must be capable of either avoiding the draining effects of the masses or of retaining enough of himself to avoid being enveloped by the hive.

there is little doubt that there are many who desire to be that higher man, but simple yearning cannot be enough. the path to the higher man must wend its way through pain, effort and the voluntary sacrifice of those things that really don't matter. the higher man is due no accolades nor does he seek them, they are meaningless and he would see through the sham of such banality. the higher man needs no more power than that required to govern himself. the higher man has no purpose but higher still.

WEll said delusionsofNORMALity.
However I think that the higher man can definitely manipulate the lower man without becoming lower. Like Peruvian Devil said, you can manipulate the lower man to a more high point of view, because they are not capable of becoming higher by themselves. By this I mean they are not really able to exercise free-thought and look into things themselves without being biased towards the popular or common view.

I think higher people are the same as lower but the only difference is that they CAN think freely and do what they think is right. But that makes a HUGE difference.

Whether it's better or not is up to debate. Higher people have solace in the fact that they are more intelligent or free thinking than lower people who just blindly follow. However it is a lot easier to just blindly follow and you will probably be happier doing so if you've never known the state of being higher. Ignorance is bliss so they say, I tend to agree but....

Alan Watts, who is learning Buddhist Zen, has spoken on the topic of so called higher people. But he says that when you reach enlightenment you will realise that there really is no higher or lower type of person. This is because there really is no correct way. Why is being a 'higher man' better than being lower?

So when you are enlightened you are probably the 'highest' you can get. But you realise that there is no higher or lower. Therefore you can go on being happy as well just like the 'lower' people.

It's hard to explain, especially in a forum but if anyone knows what I'm talking about please explain it better than me lol.

Some people here, I think, have taken the term of a higher man and turned it into a holy man. The higher man, at least the one I'm talking about, is beyond good and evil, a higher man is just an individual who has broken away from the group consciousness and can see past the control, manipulation and nonsense. This allows this individual to either, do nothing, alert others of the manipulation or choose to manipulate them himself/herself.
Of course then this would mean that there are different levels of a higher state, with the lowest being that of the one who does nothing, the level in which most of the higher individuals would fall into because of the group consciousness the people have that makes teaching something different very difficult.
The next level, most people would think, would be the one who manipulates the people, and the higher level after that would be for the one who alarms and tries to bring the people into a higher state of being. However, if one is to look at both of these higher men beyond good and evil, then they would fall into the same level.
An Individual with a higher consciousness (higher man), is not going to be controlled, it may appear that he is controlled, even if he is doing nothing, but inside his mind he is free and not a part of the group consciousness, which allows him to at any point he wishes break out and follow his own higher self and, if he choose to, manipulate others into following him.
Out there is huge group of sheep, you can lead them to a slaughter house, to jump out of a cliff, to a nice farm, but in the progress these sheep do not know where they are going, so even if you are bringing them into a nice farm so they can live happy forever they do not know this, they are just following you.
There are many people who have a higher level of consciousness, this "higher man" does not have to be holy or enlightened, he just has to be able to think in a way that most cannot, and this allows him to live in a complete different reality than others. The challenge is to get others to see this different reality, or get them to see whatever the higher man wants them to see using his own reality.

I was/am pretty high while typing this, it only seemed appropriate to write in this post:jointsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peruvian Devil

Some people here, I think, have taken the term of a higher man and turned it into a holy man. The higher man, at least the one I'm talking about, is beyond good and evil, a higher man is just an individual who has broken away from the group consciousness and can see past the control, manipulation and nonsense. This allows this individual to either, do nothing, alert others of the manipulation or choose to manipulate them himself/herself.
Of course then this would mean that there are different levels of a higher state, with the lowest being that of the one who does nothing, the level in which most of the higher individuals would fall into because of the group consciousness the people have that makes teaching something different very difficult.
The next level, most people would think, would be the one who manipulates the people, and the higher level after that would be for the one who alarms and tries to bring the people into a higher state of being. However, if one is to look at both of these higher men beyond good and evil, then they would fall into the same level.
An Individual with a higher consciousness (higher man), is not going to be controlled, it may appear that he is controlled, even if he is doing nothing, but inside his mind he is free and not a part of the group consciousness, which allows him to at any point he wishes break out and follow his own higher self and, if he choose to, manipulate others into following him.
Out there is huge group of sheep, you can lead them to a slaughter house, to jump out of a cliff, to a nice farm, but in the progress these sheep do not know where they are going, so even if you are bringing them into a nice farm so they can live happy forever they do not know this, they are just following you.
There are many people who have a higher level of consciousness, this "higher man" does not have to be holy or enlightened, he just has to be able to think in a way that most cannot, and this allows him to live in a complete different reality than others. The challenge is to get others to see this different reality, or get them to see whatever the higher man wants them to see using his own reality.

I was/am pretty high while typing this, it only seemed appropriate to write in this post:jointsmile:

---

Couldn't ever have said it better myself. The higher man is beyond the bullshit, so to speak.

The idea of higher man just doesn't work in my mind. That being said if there was one I don't think they would be spending there short time on this earth trying to manipulate man kind. I believe the person doing that is clearly displaying if higher man exists it is not them.

there are many varrying degrees of the individual. some of us are stupid, some of us are weak, some of us are slow, some of us are just plain ignorant.


we are all equal in the sense that we all possess the same capacity of self improvement and self betterment. but that is a matter of free will to decide weather or not to WORK FOR IT.



most people are too lazy to work for self betterment, and these are the "lesser" people he speaks of. the higher man is merely the one who uses his free will to achieve self betterment.


However, Nietzsche neglects to take into consideration personal responsibility, thus proving he was actually one of the lesser beings himself.


His neglect of morality proves that he is a lesser person, for we all have the duty to take responsibility for ourselves, and those of whom cannot will cause more ill in their ripples than not. the truly higher man is an individual who can responsibly affect the world around him to improve the living conditions not only for himself, but for all others in his environment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stoner Shadow Wolf

there are many varrying degrees of the individual. some of us are stupid, some of us are weak, some of us are slow, some of us are just plain ignorant.


we are all equal in the sense that we all possess the same capacity of self improvement and self betterment. but that is a matter of free will to decide weather or not to WORK FOR IT.



most people are too lazy to work for self betterment, and these are the "lesser" people he speaks of. the higher man is merely the one who uses his free will to achieve self betterment.


However, Nietzsche neglects to take into consideration personal responsibility, thus proving he was actually one of the lesser beings himself.


His neglect of morality proves that he is a lesser person, for we all have the duty to take responsibility for ourselves, and those of whom cannot will cause more ill in their ripples than not. the truly higher man is an individual who can responsibly affect the world around him to improve the living conditions not only for himself, but for all others in his environment.

---

Yeah, the supreme irony is that, though brilliant, Nietzsche had shades of the lower man...

I don't know...I'm sure you've all noticed this: some people can just GET IT, and some can't. I mean, some people can watch a sunrise and be deeply touched with its majesty, and some can look at the same thing and just see some light, no different in their consciousness than fluorescent ones. The former person would be the higher one. Also, we have a choice in our 21st century lives: we can live, or we can become totally lost in the web of bullshit and not care one bit...that for me defines the lower man, one who can watch MTV with an uncritical eye.

High and low are simply words.
Superiority is a social illness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

High and low are simply words.
Superiority is a social illness.

---

Haha funny how we're debating basically the same principles in the music forum...

Voltaire and Aldous Huxley were above the common dipshits of their day, end of story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stoner Shadow Wolf

However, Nietzsche neglects to take into consideration personal responsibility, thus proving he was actually one of the lesser beings himself.

His neglect of morality proves that he is a lesser person, for we all have the duty to take responsibility for ourselves, and those of whom cannot will cause more ill in their ripples than not. the truly higher man is an individual who can responsibly affect the world around him to improve the living conditions not only for himself, but for all others in his environment.

---

Thats OK... but morality and intelligence are not always related, so there can be people like Nietszche, who was very intelligent but not very moral.
And i think its so because morality is not an absolute thing, but an abstract and very subjetive one, defined in terms of some concepts, values, and maybe even feelings. But as concepts and mainly values are intelligence based, people of different levels of intelligence may have different concepts and values, and thus different standards of morality (or even none).
So, maybe Nietszche could seem not moral for our usual standards, but maybe someone with the same intelligence and values of him would think that his (lack of) morality was perfectly OK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

Superiority is a social illness.

---

the denial of superiority is the disease of a failing society. it breeds the concept of enforced equality and forces us all into the same molds of mediocrity. if there is no place for the superior mind, then there is no place for innovation and alternative thought. there is no doubt that there are those who think differently than the masses, possibly better, and to consider thinking differently an "illness" is one of the first steps to the stagnation and collapse of a society.

the problem with superiority is not those who attain it, but those who are unable to grasp that new way of thinking and are envious of those few who are capable of rising above the humdrum existence of lesser creatures. we cling to our mediocrity and see only evil in the alternatives. it's sad but true that, though we long for something better, we destroy anyone who might see that better way and force them into the accepted stereotypes of the craven mob.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coelho

Thats OK... but morality and intelligence are not always related, so there can be people like Nietszche, who was very intelligent but not very moral.
And i think its so because morality is not an absolute thing, but an abstract and very subjetive one, defined in terms of some concepts, values, and maybe even feelings. But as concepts and mainly values are intelligence based, people of different levels of intelligence may have different concepts and values, and thus different standards of morality (or even none).
So, maybe Nietszche could seem not moral for our usual standards, but maybe someone with the same intelligence and values of him would think that his (lack of) morality was perfectly OK.

---

Morality is simple: That which causes harm is not morally sound.

which brings into play greater and lesser evils.

is it a greater or lesser evil to manipulate a "lesser" man into living a productive life, as opposed to leaving him to his own devices and wind up living a homeless life?


the matter of morality rests on the man's own opinion of the two scenarios.

If the man has a preference for one or the other, his moral ground would lie in that area.


if the man would prefer a homeless life, to interfere and "improve" his life would be morally wrong.




Morality and intelligence must go hand in hand, for without intelligence, morality would be lost on the individual, likewise, without morality, intelligence would be wasted.



Universal morality lies in respect and responsibility.

Respect the free will of others, and use your own free will responsibly, and you will walk a morally sound path.

Neglect your personal responsibility or to respect the freedom of others, and you will walk an amoral path.


It shouldnt take a lot of intelligence to understand the simplicity of morality. if you dont get it, maybe you're over thinking things...

How exactly is intellect measured ?
Is a brain surgeon more intelligent than a mechanic ?
I suppose that would depend on wether you had an anuerism or a blocked carb.. :D
Is the downs syndrome child who plays piano like a demon or can recount all the inportant dates from the last two centuries less inteligent than you or I ?
It's a question of supposed importance and mans need to feel superior to others in the pecking order of life.

Basically it's bollocks ! :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

How exactly is intellect measured ?
Is a brain surgeon more intelligent than a mechanic ?
I suppose that would depend on wether you had an anuerism or a blocked carb.. :D
Is the downs syndrome child who plays piano like a demon or can recount all the inportant dates from the last two centuries less inteligent than you or I ?
It's a question of supposed importance and mans need to feel superior to others in the pecking order of life.

Basically it's bollocks ! :thumbsup:

---

You'd be one of those literary critics who say that Shakespeare's genius didn't write his works, Elizabethan/Jacobean England did.

Shakespeare, Newton, Socrates, Mozart, Michelangelo...all of these people managed to transcend the intellectual or artistic limitations of the common man, rendering the great man theory worth a lot more than "bollocks." Some people are just fools, plain and simple, and to say they're equal to a creative genius is just outrageous. All men are born equal, sure...what they do after that, not so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt

You'd be one of those literary critics who say that Shakespeare's genius didn't write his works, Elizabethan/Jacobean England did.

Shakespeare, Newton, Socrates, Mozart, Michelangelo...all of these people managed to transcend the intellectual or artistic limitations of the common man, rendering the great man theory worth a lot more than "bollocks." Some people are just fools, plain and simple, and to say they're equal to a creative genius is just outrageous. All men are born equal, sure...what they do after that, not so much.

---

You are delving into the nature versus nurture argument and to a large degree we are products of both genetics and enviroment.

Intellect is not the measure of any man and to assume a position of superiority is the domain of the inadequate.
Theory is fine but in a practical world theory isn't much use.

Nobody has yet made an attempt to answer my question of a what do you consider a failsafe method to quantify and accredit intelligence ?

I consider myself relatively intelligent , some consider me highly intelligent , others consider me a fool, we can't all be right. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

Nobody has yet made an attempt to answer my question of a what do you consider a failsafe method to quantify and accredit intelligence ?

---

Quote:

---

Morality and intelligence must go hand in hand, for without intelligence, morality would be lost on the individual, likewise, without morality, intelligence would be wasted.



Universal morality lies in respect and responsibility.

Respect the free will of others, and use your own free will responsibly, and you will walk a morally sound path.

Neglect your personal responsibility or to respect the freedom of others, and you will walk an amoral path.

---

i guess, then, it would be one's ability to coexist with their peers and environment without forcing their will to change either.

Those who display ease in coexisting MUST be intelligent, for a stupid person wont be able to handle it. HOWEVER, intelligence, being a man made concept, like distance, time, weight, and speed, must be measured with a linear numerical "weight". right now, we have I.Q. points.



i dont think that works, nor is it fail safe, i prefer my example, but ultimately you have to take into consideration the diversity of intelligence.


i kant spell but i noez my maths very gud!


doesnt mean im stupid, doesnt mean im smart, it means i know some things, and dont know others.


i say one's intelligence should be best gauged by their actions, and interactions with the world around them.


those who cause more harm than good are idiots. those who create more happiness and less pain are geniouses!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

You are delving into the nature versus nurture argument and to a large degree we are products of both genetics and enviroment.

Intellect is not the measure of any man and to assume a position of superiority is the domain of the inadequate.
Theory is fine but in a practical world theory isn't much use.

Nobody has yet made an attempt to answer my question of a what do you consider a failsafe method to quantify and accredit intelligence ?

I consider myself relatively intelligent , some consider me highly intelligent , others consider me a fool, we can't all be right. :D

---

You're clearly nobody's fool.

For me, true intelligence is depth. Does a person think deeply about things, have a large capacity for free thought, have an appreciation for the finer things, a spiritual awareness, etc.? Extreme, unequivocal kindness can be a form of this too.

Oh, and by the way, to say a belief in superiority is the mark of the inadequate, isn't that an assertion of your own superiority, that you're above such thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt

You're clearly nobody's fool.

For me, true intelligence is depth. Does a person think deeply about things, have a large capacity for free thought, have an appreciation for the finer things, a spiritual awareness, etc.? Extreme, unequivocal kindness can be a form of this too.

Oh, and by the way, to say a belief in superiority is the mark of the inadequate, isn't that an assertion of your own superiority, that you're above such thoughts?

---

Certainly not , I am often guilty of arrogance as opposed to balancing my pride in my achievements against the recognition of my short comings.

Of course there are always the favoured subjects that I excell in but by the same token there are fields of knowledge that I know absolutely nothing about.

YouTube - Monty python - universe song

Is there any question in life the Monty Python boys can't answer ? :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

Certainly not , I am often guilty of arrogance as opposed to balancing my pride in my achievements against the recognition of my short comings.

Of course there are always the favoured subjects that I excell in but by the same token there are fields of knowledge that I know absolutely nothing about.

YouTube - Monty python - universe song

Is there any question in life the Monty Python boys can't answer ? :thumbsup:

---

Oh, I hear that. My mathematical skills are pretty pathetic.

I'm a huge Python fan, by the way.

Yesterday, or the day before (i dont remember) while i was being a "higher (in this :jointsmile: sense) man", i think i figured out what Nietzsche did mean with "higher man".
Most people are very immersed in their own humanity, in their daily concerns, and feel, behave, live and die as humans without never stop to think about it, that they are humans, and everything they are and do are not "the life", "the world", "the reality" . but only and just only human things.
But some people are able to view things past their humanity, to percieve the traits of behavior of us human beings, like to view things from a outsider perspective, like if they were, for example, aliens watching how the mankind lives and behaves, and so they can notice the limitations and arbitrarieties and the general folly of our usual human lifes and concerns.
Most (if not all) of the "great men" were of this kind, and thats why they were different of the "normal" people that lived with them but were not great as them because they were just "normal". Being "higher" allowed them to notice things that the normal people didnt, do things that normal people didnt and be more than normal people were.
And in this case i think there is no gradation of highness. Or a person can get out from its own humanity and percieve the world "from above", or it cant, so or a person is a "higher man" or it isnt.
If it were what Nietzsche did mean, then i agree with him.

Coelho, i think almost all hippies and stoners are "higher" individuals, and i do not mean that for puns.


I believe that anyone who's ever altered their perception of the world, weather through drug or meditation, has opened their mind to that "outside-looking-in" perspective which allows us to take a look at our lives and selves.



I am one of these kinds of people, you describe, as being able to observe humanity, as though from the outside. i have been since i was 12 years old; i took one look at a $5 my dad gave me and kind of snapped, tore it up to shreds, on the thought-impulse that if we dont have money, we cant have anything.

The thought that earning money was more important than servicing life drove me insane, and i have never actually recovered. Stupid humans.

But nevermind that, it's not like i am going out and killing people, no matter how much i think you people deserve it for being so stupid as to consensually rely on inanimate, unloving representations of quantum wealth.

Rather than living life for quality, you live for quantity.



I have news for you:

Quantity =/= Quality.

More is not necessarily better.


All things are beneficial in moderation, harmful in excess.



If every single human being could, at all times, easily acquire at least $5, any time, any place, then money would be universally beneficial.

Doesnt work that way and never will, right? So how is money actually any good? It only holds us back from necessities and convinces us that we've "earned" luxuries.

No one i've spoken to who hasnt been stoned before can understand WTF i am talking about.


ALMOST No one on these forums has a hard time relating.



WE are higher than our former selves.

Depends what criteria you decide upon to make up this "higher man" to hold to. If its watching and listening to the top 10 list on the radio and not smoking pot to that person, it would be as if they were the "higher man" all along. You might be the one thinking your higher in certain ways to the other, partly in reason because you read Nietzsche. So on and so on. Maybe its just in mans nature to think of himself so highly.

I thought a high man would be a nicer man like smarter kinder the new man