7 Answers

  1. In reality, there were no such personalities, because Nietzsche's “superman” is a different kind of person. Moreover, according to the author-creator of this generalized model of personality, it is as developed as Homo sapiens differs from its ancestor-Australopithecus

  2. Napoleon and Caesar conquerors and conquerors. For some reason, most often the concept of “superman” is associated with the victory of one person over another or others through physical force, suppression and coercion.

    But there is another power, the power of mind and knowledge. I would call a superhuman of such powerMahatma Gandhi. A person of deep and original mind.

    He studied so thoroughly the structure of the British colonial system in India and the logic and psychology of the conquerors that he learned to think in terms of them.

    Knowing the language and culture of his people, he compared the knowledge of these two socio-cultural systems and revealed their weaknesses and strengths.

    He realized that what is considered a strong point in one system, in another system you can turn it into a weakness of the opponent, forcing him to take actions in his own logic and, having exhausted the energy of the opponent's strong point to the end, win.

    So Mahatma Gandhi invented the theory of nonviolent revolution, described by him in the book “Revolution without Violence”. This form of struggle was then used in the colonial struggle and in other countries.

  3. “Superman – – – is the sick imagination of a not quite mentally healthy person. Interestingly, the combination “superman” is impossible to decipher, but what it is. There can't be superhumans among humans, there can't be such things in Nature. Since there are no “supertrees” or “super-beasts” in Nature, there are people who have special abilities that they have developed through special training, who have refused earthly goods and limited them in their lives. Nietzsche could not define who the “superman” is as a type. Napoleon, Caesar, etc., are all people as people and they were no different from other people. This is my personal opinion. With respect.

  4. Alcibiades, Alexander the Great, and, of course, Cesare Borgia are all higher types. Napoleon didn't. In Nietzsche's words, he ” betrayed himself and sold out, and lost the nobility of character.” Napoleon made a deal with Catholics, with Christianity, which for Nietzsche is absolutely unacceptable. And although Bonaparte then held the pope hostage for 5 years at the end of his reign, he still observed the main prohibition of Christianity: the prohibition of euthanasia.

  5. It is the Nietzschean man who has never existed in history. In fact, Nietzsche himself in the work “Antichrist. The curse of Christianity ” tried to see in Christ-a superman. The problem is that Christ taught mercy and ” slave morality.” In Nietzsche, it turned out that the superman combines the following features::

    1) Outstanding abilities related to leadership and management of the “slave race”

    2) Sincere, deep love for art and culture.

    3) Complete, consistent immoralism and Machiavellianism (“the end justifies the means).

    The closest thing to such an ideal is that the pagan rulers of ancient times-Pericles, Alexander the Great, Caesar. Napoleon doesn't really care about art and culture anymore, he's a man of a different era. But all these rulers were not at all consistent immoralists.

    So the attempt to see Nietzschean superman in history is basically doomed to failure. This is essentially a myth (Nietzsche himself understood this, referring its appearance in Thus Saith Zarathustra to the future).

  6. Please, the most important superman is Zarathustra, if not from the story about this he hinted in ecce homo. There is Cesare Borgia in his own words. In my opinion, the founder of MMM Sergey Panteleevich Mavrodi can be considered a superman, and not for his pyramid, but for his thoughts and works, and Leonardo da Vinci is also suitable.

  7. Those who want to find concrete answers to some questions from Nietzsche will be very disappointed.It doesn't really offer any specific path. It's like throwing around a person with an empty soul, who questions everything, but does not see a way out of the cage in which he is.The freedom of the spirit to which it aspires is vulgar in its unpredictability and inexplicability. He didn't think they understood him. They don't understand him even now, because he couldn't express what he wanted.

Leave a Reply