Arrangement
Nietzsche's concept of the theory of the superman. What is wrong with Nietzsche's idea of the superman Who is the author of the concept of the superman

Nietzsche's concept of the theory of the superman. What is wrong with Nietzsche's idea of the superman Who is the author of the concept of the superman

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted onhttp:// www. allbest. en/

RSPUthem.BUT.AND.Herzen

Nietzsche's concept of the theory of the superman

Melenny Vitaly Petrovich

Tourism. Course 1

Introduction

1. Friedrich Nietzsche

2. The concept of the superman

2.1 The idea of a superman

2.2 "Path" to the superman

2.3 The essence of the doctrine of the superman

Conclusion

Introduction

The idea of the superman occupied one of the central places in Nietzsche's philosophy. In the process of developing his work, the idea of the "superman" was considered more and more carefully and in detail by Nietzsche. In fact, it is easy to guess why, because the relevance to this day does not leave this topic. "Superman" is still interesting to this day. In fact, Nietzsche was not the first to touch on this topic, but in the period of the New and Recent Times it was forgotten. Often, very often, people involuntarily, perhaps, remember Him, i.e. all mythological heroes or fictional heroes such as Monte Cristo or Sherlock Holmes are the modern expression of a man Above the ordinary, transcending common man in strength, or in cunning, or in courage.

1. Friedrich Nietzsche

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche is the most prominent representative of the philosophical direction called "philosophy of life".

The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche was born on October 15, 1844 into a family of descendants of Polish nobles. From early childhood he had an instinctive attraction to written language, to visible thought. In 12 days he wrote the story of his childhood. He left his family in 1858. Being the son of a simple pastor, he was educated at the universities of Bonn and Leipzig. Already during his studies, Nietzsche showed such talents that he was predicted to become a professor. And so it happened, and already in 1868 (at the age of 24) he became a professor at the University of Bezel.

Everything was going great, but in 1876 Nietzsche began to suffer from terrible headaches and moved to live in Italy, traveling around Switzerland and France. At this time there is a radical change in his worldview and creativity. 200 days a year passed in terrible agony. But, according to experts, it was not a neuropathology, as is commonly believed. His "Morning Dawn" (1881), written in a state of unimaginable physical suffering, testifies to a mature mind. Nietzsche's works are mostly written in the form of short fragments, aphorisms. This form was the only one possible in a similar state. Suffering educates his will and fertilizes his thoughts.

Nietzsche quits his teaching career and begins to write his main works. These include: “Thus Spoke Zarathustra”, “Human, Too Human”, “Beyond Good and Evil”, “Genealogy of Morals”, “Antichrist”, “The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music”, etc. In 1889, madness interrupts his creative work. Friedrich Nietzsche died in Weimar on August 25, 1900, not realizing the success that his works already had by that time. Nietzsche set a new direction for the cultural and philosophical orientation, which was called the "philosophy of life", because. all the problems under consideration concerned directly human life and society.

2. The concept of the Superman

2.1 The idea of a superman

The idea of the superman in philosophy was first expressed by Friedrich Nietzsche. For him, man is the next evolutionary link of the "homo sapiens" type. The value of a person here is intermediate. “Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the superman, a rope over an abyss,” said Nietzsche. The greatness of man lies in the fact that he is a transition and annihilation. Destruction is the destruction of "human, all too human", for man is "something that must be overcome". Because passing is dangerous, staying on the way is dangerous, looking back is dangerous, fear and stopping are dangerous - this is the meaning of the expression "... a person is a transition ...".

We can say that Nietzsche's idea of a superman was a consequence of Darwin's evolutionary theory: If a person descended from some animal-like ancestors, then we can assume that his current state (Man) can be an intermediate state that can become the basis for a higher one.

In other words, Man will become for the Superman what the ape is for man. “What is a monkey in relation to man? Ridicule or shame. And in this way, man must be for the superman: a laughingstock or a painful shame... You have made the path from worm to man, but much in you remains of the worm. You were once an ape, and even now man is a greater ape than any other ape." Here Nietzsche is talking about the development of the WILL TO POWER, which gradually takes on the forms of biological and social dominance. It was these features of Nietzsche's Superman that the leaders of the totalitarian states of the 20th century tried to embody in their being.

The idea of the superman is ancient. This is proved by the words of P.D. Uspensky Pyotr Demyamnovich Uspemnsky (March 4, 1878, Moscow - October 2, 1947, Line Place, Surrey, England) - Russian philosopher, theosophist, esotericist and writer, mathematician by education. He showed interest in the metaphysical (cosmological) ideas of the fourth dimension, “Folk wisdom of all ages and tribes understood that a person, as he is, is not able to arrange his own life; popular wisdom has never considered man an achievement that crowns creation. She correctly assessed the place of man, accepted and allowed the idea that there can and should be beings who, although they are also people, still stand much higher than an ordinary person, stronger than him, more complex, “more wonderful” ”

The idea of the superman was forgotten during the period of the New and Modern Times, when experimental science occupied a central place. “Only the dull thought of the last centuries of European culture has lost contact with the idea of the superman and has set as its goal the man as he is, as he has always been and always will be. In this comparatively short period, European thought had so thoroughly forgotten the idea of the superman that when Nietzsche presented it to the West, it seemed to him new, original, and unexpected. In fact, it has existed since the very beginning of human thinking as we know it.”

“After all, the superman has never completely disappeared from modern Western thought either. For example, what is the "Napoleonic legend" and all legends similar to it, if not attempts to create a new myth about the superman? The masses, in their own way, still live with the idea of the superman; they are not satisfied with the man as he is; and literature intended for the masses inevitably presents them with the superman. Indeed, what is the Count of Monte Cristo, or Rocambole, or Sherlock Holmes, if not a modern expression of the same idea of a strong, powerful being that ordinary people are not able to fight, who surpasses them in strength, courage and cunning? His power always contains something mysterious, magical, wonderful.

At the same time, Ouspensky shows that the idea of the superman constantly pops up at any time. She sleeps, ready to wake up and take over the minds. “... The masses, in their own way, still live with the idea of a superman; they are not satisfied with the man as he is; and literature intended for the masses inevitably presents them with the superman.

“Approaching the idea of the superman in an intellectual way is possible only after a long and persistent training of the mind. The ability to think is that first necessary stage of initiation which guarantees the safety of approaching this idea. What does it mean to be able to think? This means being able to think differently, not in the way we are used to, to imagine the world in some new categories. We have oversimplified our idea of the world, we are accustomed to drawing it too monotonously for ourselves; now we have to relearn how to understand its complexity. To do this, you need to perceive it again and again in a different way; understand that we do not know at all what a person is; understand that a person may not be what we think of him.

In our hearts we know very well, we know something; but we can't focus on it. We understand a certain circle of ideas, but we live in a different circle. Life is spinning around us, and we are spinning with it, and our shadows are spinning around us.

"There is nothing outside of us. But we forget it at the first sound," says Zarathustra in Nietzsche.

2.2 "Path" to the Superman

Nietzsche describes the path to the superman allegorically. On the way to achieving perfection, a threefold transformation of the essence of a human being into a superhuman principle is necessary. In the speech "On the Three Transformations" Zarathustra indicates three stages or metamorphoses of the human spirit, corresponding to the three stages of the ascending formation of man into the ideal type of superman.

So at first the spirit becomes camel, i.e. those who stubbornly and without hesitation bear their burden. The weight of the load is the weight of our prejudices. The luggage is not a camel - it is loaded on him.

Then the spirit turns into a lion, the purpose of which is the desire to gain freedom in the fight against the Great Dragon, on the scales of which is written "you must" (the dragon here is the one who loads the load on the camel).

The final metamorphosis - the transformation of the lion into a child - represents a positive stage in the emergence of the superhuman type. Infancy symbolizes the affirmation of life. A child is a symbol of oblivion of gravity and struggle, it is the birth of new values, it is the power of a new imperious and unmistakable statement.

The difficult path to the superman consistently destroys everything that can be called heaviness, i.e. this is what orients us to the old values, as well as what obeys the dictates of the crowd

2.3 The essence of the doctrine of the superman

Superman is the highest biological type. But this person needs to be brought up, and for this Nietzsche does not have any special recipes: he acts only as a prophet, foreshadowing the coming of a new "leader", a demigod, or even God. Ordinary people are the raw material, the soil for growing the superman. This is what Nietzsche means when he compares man to a rope over an abyss.

According to Nietzsche, the superman combines two principles APOLLONIAN and DIONYSIAAN - philosophical and aesthetic concepts used by Schelling to describe form and order as the personification of the essence of the god Apollo, in contrast to the creative impulses of the god Dionysus that destroy all forms. According to Schelling, "in man ... we find an unlimited productive force, blind by nature, which is opposed in the same subject by a meaningful, simply Dionysian self" - Dionysian, with its joyful riotous, sweeping, instinctive and intoxicating way of life, and Apollonian , which gives this overflowing way of life balance, harmony, integrity of the IDEAL. At the same time, Nietzsche emphasized the significant predominance of Dionysian over Apollonian in man, because Dionysian is human instincts. In other words, he spoke of the predominance of the biological over the spiritual in man, giving the intellect a secondary role necessary for the implementation of instincts. In contrast to the content of man, Nietzsche spoke of the content of the superman as follows: "Stuffy heart, cold head" and minus everything "human, too human." In other words, Nietzsche's superman is a hero who knows how to curb (and not suppress!!!) his instinctive urges, i.e. he is able to create himself. The image of the Superman combines that power in relation to nature and the World, which today's Man does not possess. This is the stage at which not the biological, but the spiritual dominates, and this is the rise to a new level of relations with the world and overcoming its contradictions.

Nietzsche argued that the actions of the superman are infallible, i.e. he speaks of superrationality (superreason). According to Nietzsche, the super-rationality inherent in the superman is the instinct that reason has become. The infallibility of instinct, lost by man, can be restored in the superman. The superman, possessing super-rationality and rejecting the old values, is the one who creates new values. The values of the superman are values that ensure the movement forward, which make him capable of growing the “will to power”, and do not constrain his actions, such as morality.

Morality and superman.

Nietzsche believed that belief in God paralyzes, hence Nietzsche did not deny God. And the image of the superman was focused on the rejection of morality, which fetters the true nature of man. Nietzsche zealously criticized Christian morality, comparing it to a cage in which animals sit in a menagerie, like people "caged by the church in a cage." The premise of such morality is that “iron bars can be more useful than freedom, and that there are animal tamers who do not stop at the most terrible means - who know how to use red-hot iron ...” F. Nietzsche. The will to power Nietzsche replaces the idea of God with the idea of the Superman. The Superman is a Man who thinks and acts, manifesting unbelief in all its forms. That is why he is the Superman, that he is trying to overcome his limitations (ie, human) in all its manifestations - the limited life span, the limited power, the limited knowledge.

Nietzsche's image of the superman is a critique of morality. Nietzsche sought to create the foundations of a new morality of the Superman, aimed at improving human culture, improving the type of personality. According to Nietzsche, morality plays a corrupting role, assuming obedience, patience, conscientiousness: all this softens and weakens the will of a person. At the same time, Nietzsche believed that morality does not determine human behavior, but only masks the "will to power" in people's behavior. Nietzsche also argued that life "strives for the maximum sense of power." He condemns all the moral foundations that supported the former humanity: he wants to destroy the former morality and establish his own - the morality of the superman.

Nietzsche sees overcoming the fear of death as the highest meaning of being a superman as gaining complete freedom, having carried out several volitional acts outside of morality, i.e. by creating his own morality and rejecting the old one, a person will fulfill his destiny, receive freedom from the fear of death for this.

Apparently, here is one of the contradictions of his work: while he spoke about the creation of the morality of the superman, he also spoke about the meaninglessness of morality, based on the statement about the changeability of the world, its chaos, i.e. morality is not needed, because the world, having changed, will have to reject it and create a new one.

Superman and "will to authorities".

Superman - the most perfect embodiment of the will to power , for historical events everything begins with the creative efforts of great personalities who are able to overcome the barriers of events.

Nietzsche attributed Alexander Nevsky, Julius Caesar, Goethe, Michelangelo, Borgia, Napoleon to people similar to the image of the superman. At the same time, Nietzsche argued that in our history “there has never been a superman! Indeed, even the greatest of them he found - too human! That is, the heroes of myths, the deified leaders of antiquity, characters with "blurred lines between God and man", Jesus Christ, the apostles, the ideal of the Renaissance - the "Master" of Nature, etc. served as a likeness of Nietzsche's superman.

Nietzsche understood the will to power as a breakthrough, the will to expand one's self.

“The will to power”, according to Nietzsche, is not only the main, but also the only principle of everything that happens, it is what underlies everything that exists. Thus, all physical and moral processes are various manifestations of the will to power.

The will to power is directly expressed in instinct, which is why the physical principle in a person is higher than the spiritual. In the image of the Superman, there must be a leading will to power over oneself, which, developing in inspiration to create oneself, is genius. I. Efremov put it this way: “People usually obey thousand-year-old laws that have grown out of the sound experience of generations. They are connected by the necessity of life, faith and service to the gods and power. great person puts himself above everything universal, destroying the foundations of life ... ".

The image of Nietzsche's "superman" is a cult of a "strong personality", obsessed with a thirst for power. Nietzsche considered the "will to power" to determine the stimulus of human actions. In weak people, it manifests itself as the will to "freedom", in the stronger - in the desire for more power, and in the strongest - in the desire to suppress someone else's will. Life, according to Nietzsche, "strives towards the maximum sense of power." Thus, the "will to power" becomes a criterion for any type of behavior, any phenomenon. "What well? - Everything that increases the "will to power" and the power itself in a person. What's wrong? “That which comes from weakness,” is how he expresses this thought in Antichrist.

According to Nietzsche, a person seeks to find his "life purpose", which is manifested in the will to power. We can say that the will to power is expressed here in the form of the will to knowledge, i.e. in the form of an instinct to change what surrounds and subsequent domination over it. Superman is the embodiment of the will to become, to create. At the same time, Nietzsche believes that the embodiment of such a will leads to a violation of the harmony of man with his environment. In order to avoid this, inner power is necessary, the power of one's own spirit, one's own Self, in such power the transformation of the will to power into the inspiration of self-creation takes place. This is the constructive meaning of the superman (heroism + genius).

According to Nietzsche, the will to power is:

1) The will that establishes itself, creates itself, establishes itself, i.e. It is a self-creating force whose movement measures dignity and value.

2) Overcoming will, because the will to power overcomes the other will. The will to power is of great importance in the image of the superman, since it overcomes the resistance of another will, the will of instincts.

Conclusion

nietzsche philosophy overman

Nietzsche's superman is a harmonious man, combining physical perfection, high moral and intellectual qualities. The Superman, therefore, is the Superman, because he tries to overcome his limitations (ie, human) in all its manifestations - the limited life span, the limited power, the limited knowledge. The constructive meaning of the Superman is that it is a Personality that combines genius and heroism. Superman is the essence, the projective, but not yet revealed essence of man: “... the rope stretched between the animal and the superman is a rope over the abyss” F. Nietzsche. Thus spoke Zarathustra. Nietzsche's superman is a man who rejects conventional moral values and creates his own. Superman is a person who will determine the vector of development of history and mankind. Superman is the image of a strong personality, obsessed with a lust for power. A superman is a person who can create himself, that is, can overcome his instincts, and not suppress them, this is a person who is superintelligent.

Approximately so it is possible to characterize the image of the superman created by the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. The work of F. Nietzsche had many difficulties, even cruel and negative moments, but his works testify to a sincere desire to improve human culture, to improve the type of human personality. And the improvement of imperfect human nature is always desirable. This is undoubtedly a noble goal. Nietzsche's works are very often and criticized a lot, even scolded, but they are still very popular, people read them. Whatever they are, they nourish our intellect, enrich our spiritual world.

Hosted on Allbest.ru

2.2 "The ideal of man is the superman"

Man has a purpose within himself; its purpose is life. This idea of the absolute value of human life, in essence, was the slogan that unites all of Nietzsche's work. This slogan is also connected with the Nietzsche ideal of man, the Superman. This ideal, according to Nietzsche's plan, can be realized only if humanity returns to the origins of its history, when the ball of life is ruled by people of a superior race - "masters", people who represent perfection, first of all, in biological terms. They will not be burdened by everyday, social or religious restrictions and prejudices, and therefore will be absolutely free.

Biologically conditioned, Nietzsche believes, is everything that is considered good in human society, which is of value to people, including moral value. Accordingly, there is not and cannot be objectively conditioned morality. Everyone has a morality that best suits the requirements of his life: the morality of one justifies everything he strives for; the morality of the other makes him peaceful; the morality of the third calls for revenge on enemies, and so on. People may not even be aware of the real source of their moral beliefs and beliefs, but that doesn't change things. Everyone has the type of morality that best suits his nature.

The most significant difference between people, according to Nietzsche, is that some of them are naturally weak, others are strong again by nature. Accordingly, their morality also differs. Strong ("masters", in Nietzsche's terminology) value personal dignity, determination, perseverance, self-confidence, unbending will and inexhaustible energy in achieving the goal. The weak ("slaves" in the same terminology) appreciate what is expressed in their weakness to a greater extent - compassion, kindness, altruism, and prudence, etc.

Once masters dominated life. They had their own morality, their own concepts and ideas about good and evil. But over time, they were overcome by slaves, but they won not by force, but by numbers. Good began to be recognized that which is more in line with their interests; softheartedness, love for one's neighbor, humility, kindness - all these and similar qualities are elevated to the level of virtue. In the era after the uprising of the slaves, slave morality has become and continues to be dominant.

In assessing the prevailing morality, Nietzsche wanted to take impartial, scientifically based, naturalistic poetry. He noted that everything goes as it should go in conditions when slaves accept the morality of slaves. One thing is bad here: even the owners begin to obey this morality. However, Nietzsche could not hold on to this objective, impartial position, since he felt himself to belong to the race of masters and recognized their morality not only as higher, but also the only one worthy of this name. Relativistic ethics with its thesis: "everyone has the type of morality that suits him" turns out to be only an external appearance. It is based on the ethics of absolutism, according to which only one morality is correct - the morality of the owners.

If we try to summarize the various disparate assessments given by Nietzsche of the prevailing morality, then their probability can be reduced to some common denominator and expressed in the form of the following three claims. The dominant morality, according to Nietzsche, is based on the assumption, firstly, of universal equality; secondly, about freedom - everyone should be free to the extent that he does not encroach on the freedom of others; thirdly, about the absoluteness of moral value, which allegedly does not require any proof, since it is not a means, but an end.

Based on these assumptions, morality quite naturally includes the principles of justice, altruism or love for one's neighbor, compassion, mercy, the superiority of spiritual values over material ones, the advantage of the public good over the personal, etc.

Nietzsche's own moral position, the position of the owner, is almost directly opposite to the morality prevailing in society. Its cornerstones are: firstly, the value of life in its biological sense - only life has an absolute value and generates everything that has value; secondly, the freedom of the strong freedom belongs only to those who have enough strength to win and defend it; thirdly, inequality people are not equal, they are only better or worse, depending on how much vitality is contained in each of them. Naturally, these foundations correspond to the principles of morality. Justice, as the prevailing morality understands it, is a lie. True justice, according to Nietzsche, is by no means based on equality - everyone has as much as he deserves, and his merits are measured by the amount of life. Equality is a sign of decline. The principle of utility is also false; the purpose of life is not to increase the good. Life itself is the highest and greatest good, and that alone matters. The principle of altruism is also a lie: if anyone can have a great goal, then it is, for sure, more important than the well-being of their neighbor. It's not about loving your neighbor; Only the best are worthy of respect and worship, and the best are the strongest. Besides, altruism is nothing but selfishness, but only the selfishness of the weak. Nietzsche does not see any merit in the principle of mercy - it is a waste of energy on the weak and degenerate. The requirement of life is not salvation or even help to the weak. The slogan worthy of true life should be: "Push the falling one!". It is the same with the principle of the public good, only great individuals have value. As for the mass, it can be of interest either as a copy of the great, or as a force that resists it, or as an instrument in its hands.

Among other things, the dominant morality, according to Nietzsche, is based on false psychology, which means that it does not and cannot honor natural instincts, thereby dooming people to follow principles that are incompatible with their nature. She talks about altruistic deeds, free will, moral order, but in reality there is nothing of the kind and cannot be. There is only lies. but the greatest harm of the prevailing morality lies in the fact that it cultivates mediocrity and thereby destroys the only thing of value - life.

Nietzsche considers his main merit to be the fact that he undertook and carried out a reassessment of all values: everything that is usually recognized as valuable, in fact, has nothing to do with true value. It is necessary to put everything in its place - to put true values in the place of imaginary values. In this reassessment of values, which essentially constitutes Nietzsche's own philosophy, he seeks to stand "beyond good and evil." Ordinary morality, no matter how developed and complex it may be, is always enclosed in a framework, the opposite sides of which constitute the idea of good and evil. Their limits exhaust all forms of existing moral relations. As for Nietzsche, according to him, morality, limited by these frameworks, is a lie. A genuine person must build his whole life in a space whose boundaries do not lie where the good and evil of the prevailing morality are located. It is in this sense that Nietzsche calls himself an immoralist.

However, is the point of view of absolute immorality possible in principle? Of course, we are not talking about individual actions that contradict the requirements of public morality, not about criminals in the usual sense, but about morality as a system of views, ideas, prescriptions, requirements, etc. From this point of view, what Nietzsche proclaims is, so to speak, shifted, placed in an unusual place, these same frames. More precisely, he adopted a different criterion of good and evil.

Consequently, in comparison with the previous tradition, Nietzsche's position is characterized by the fact that if the entire European philosophical tradition claimed to create or restructure ethics without encroaching on morality itself, then Nietzsche claims to create not only a new or renewed system of ethics, but also a new morality. . None of the philosophers of the past - neither Plato, nor Aristotle, nor St. Augustine, nor Thomas Aquinas, nor Kant - went so far: each of them claimed to create a new ethics as a philosophy of morality, but not morality itself. In other words, they sought to conceptualize the morality of their time, identify its main features, fundamental principles and show the consequences arising from them.

The morality proclaimed by Nietzsche has life as its first and absolute value as its foundation. Accordingly, its driving mechanism includes not only reflection and comprehension, but instinctive reactions. Instincts of this kind are most developed in the Superman, the ideal of man created by Nietzsche's philosophy. It is not yet in reality. The key to its appearance are those units, like Nietzsche himself, who live the life of heralds.

"We, those who think and feel, are the only ones who really and constantly do something that does not yet exist: the whole ever-growing world of values, colors, weight, perspective, ladders of affirmations and negations. The poetic fictions we have found become a guide for the so-called practical people (our actors), called upon to turn them into flesh and reality, even into everyday life.

"The world revolves around the creators of new values; it revolves inaudibly."

"My task is to move humanity towards decisions that will determine the entire future."

"I want to teach you to follow me into the distant future."

The birth of consciousness in man

Levy-Bruhl, who studied extensive ethnographic material, made accurate and profound conclusions about consciousness primitive man, which is based on collective representations. True, he immediately emphasizes ...

Russian religious philosophy of the 19th–20th centuries

The future of the world in the artistic work of V.S. Solovyov connects with the highest goals of human life (the highest goal was understood as the ideal of universal solidarity and true pan-unity). These thoughts of V.S...

Philosophy Ancient China

The highly moral jun-tzu, constructed by the philosopher as a model, a standard for imitation, had to have two most important virtues in his view: humanity and a sense of duty...

Philosophy as a form of worldview

The doctrine of law is part of social philosophy, which considers this problem from its own special point of view, of course, based on specific studies of legal science. The idea of law is inevitably linked by an inextricable chain of such concepts...

Philosophy F. Nietzsche

The reassessment of values implies, therefore, the denial of compassion, kindness, duty. He who does not spare himself has no right to spare another; love is impossible without hate...

Philosophy F. Nietzsche

"This world," says Nietzsche, "is the will to power, and nothing more! And you yourself also have this will to power, and nothing more!" Cit. Quoted from: Copleston F. From Fichte to Nietzsche. M., 2004. From...

Who among us in our youth did not read famous labor the greatest German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche "Thus says Zarathustra", making ambitious plans and dreaming of conquering the world. The movement along the path of life made its own adjustments, and dreams of greatness and glory receded into the background, giving way to more mundane pressing issues. In addition, feelings and emotions entered our life, and the impassive path of the superman no longer seemed to us such a tempting prospect. Is Nietzsche's idea applicable in our life, or is it a utopia of a celebrated genius, which is impossible for a mere mortal to approach? Let's try to figure it out.

Formation of the image of the superman in the history of the development of society

Who first put forward the idea of the superman? it turns out that it has its roots in the distant past. In the legendary Golden Age, superhumans acted as intermediaries in communication between the gods and people who considered themselves weak and unworthy to touch the deity.

Later, the concept of the superman became closely associated with religion, and in almost all religions there is a similar idea of the messiah, whose role is to save people and intercede before God. In Buddhism, the superman even replaces the idea of God, because Buddha is not a god, but a superman.

The image of the superman in those distant times had nothing to do with ordinary people. A person could not even think that by working on himself he could develop superpowers in himself, but over time we see examples of endowing these qualities with real people. Yes, in ancient history Alexander the Great was perceived as a superman, and later Julius Caesar.

In the Renaissance, this image was associated with the sovereign, the bearer of absolute power, described by N. Machiavelli, and among the German romantics, the superman is a genius who is not subject to ordinary human laws.

In the 19th century, for many, Napoleon was the standard.

Friedrich Nietzsche's Approach to the Superman

At that time, in European philosophy, the call for the study of the inner world of man is increasingly manifested, but the true breakthrough in this direction is made by Nietzsche, who challenges man, recognizing his ability to transform into a superman:

“Man is something that must be overcome. What did you do to overcome the person?

In short, Nietzsche's idea of the superman is that man, according to his concept, is a bridge to the superman, and this bridge can be overcome by suppressing the animal nature in oneself and moving towards an atmosphere of freedom. According to Nietzsche, man serves as a rope stretched between animals and the superman, and only at the end of this path can he regain his lost meaning.

Opinions about the teachings of Nietzsche, as well as about himself, are very ambiguous. While some consider him an undisputed genius, others perceive him as a monster who gave birth to a philosophical ideology that justified fascism.

Before proceeding to consider the main provisions of his theory, let's get acquainted with the life of this extraordinary person, which, of course, left its mark on his beliefs and thoughts.

Biography facts

Friedrich Nietzsche was born on October 18, 1844 in the family of a pastor, and his childhood was spent in a small town near Leipzig. When the boy was only five years old, due to mental illness, his father passed away, and a year later, his younger brother. Nietzsche took the death of his father very hard and carried these tragic memories until the end of his life.

Since childhood, he had a painful perception and acutely experienced mistakes, therefore, he strove for self-development and internal discipline. Acutely feeling the lack of inner peace, he taught his sister: "When you know how to control yourself, you begin to control the whole world."

Nietzsche was a calm, gentle and compassionate person, but he had difficulty finding mutual understanding with those around him, who, however, could not but recognize the outstanding abilities of the young genius.

After graduating from the Pfort School, which was one of the best in Germany in the 19th century, Friedrich entered the University of Bonn to study theology and classical philology. However, after the first semester, he stopped attending his theological classes and wrote to a deeply religious sister that he had lost his faith. He concentrated on the study of philology under Professor Friedrich Wilhelm Ritschl, whom he followed in 1965. In 1869, Nietzsche accepted an offer from the University of Basel in Switzerland to become professor of classical philology.

During the Franco-Prussian war in 1870-1871. Nietzsche joined the Prussian army as an orderly, where he contracted dysentery and diphtheria. This aggravated his poor health - Nietzsche suffered from excruciating headaches, stomach problems from childhood, and while studying at the University of Leipzig (according to some sources) contracted syphilis while visiting a brothel.

In 1879, health problems reached such a breaking point that he was forced to resign his position at the University of Basel.

Years after Basel

Nietzsche spent the next decade traveling the world in an attempt to find a climate that could alleviate the symptoms of his illness. The sources of income during that period were a pension from the university and the help of friends. He sometimes came to Naumburg to visit his mother and sister Elisabeth, with whom Nietzsche had frequent conflicts about her husband, who had Nazi and anti-Semitic views.

In 1889, Nietzsche suffered a mental breakdown while in Turin, Italy. It is said that the trigger for this disorder was his accidental presence while beating a horse. Friends took Nietzsche to Basel to a psychiatric clinic, but his mental state rapidly deteriorated. At the initiative of his mother, he was transferred to a hospital in Jena, and a year later he was brought home to Naumburg, where his mother took care of him until her death in 1897. After the death of his mother, these concerns fell to his sister Elisabeth, who, after Nietzsche's death, inherited his unpublished works. It was her publications that played a key role in the later identification of Nietzsche's work with Nazi ideology. Further examination of Nietzsche's work rejects the existence of any connection between his ideas and their interpretation by the Nazis.

After suffering a stroke in the late 1890s, Nietzsche was unable to walk or speak. In 1900, he contracted pneumonia and died after suffering a stroke. According to many biographers and historians who have studied the life of the great philosopher, Nietzsche's health problems, including mental illness and early death, were caused by tertiary syphilis, but there were other causes, such as manic depression, dementia and others. Besides, in last years During his lifetime, he was practically blind.

to the world of philosophy

Oddly enough, but the years of painful suffering associated with poor health coincided with his most fruitful years, marked by the writing of many works on the topics of art, philology, history, culture, science and philosophy. It was at this time that the idea of the superman appeared in Nietzsche's philosophy.

He knew the value of life, because being terminally ill and living in constant suffering from physical pain, he still claimed that "life is good." He tried to absorb every moment of this life, repeating the phrase that each of us has repeatedly said in his life: "What does not kill us makes us stronger."

Through inhuman efforts, overcoming excruciating, unbearable pain, he wrote his imperishable works, in which more than one generation draws inspiration. Like his favorite image (Zarathustra), he “climbed the highest mountains to laugh at every tragedy of the stage and life. Yes, this laughter was through the tears of suffering and pain ...

The most famous and discussed work of the great scientist: the idea of the superman Friedrich Nietzsche

Where did it all begin? Since the death of God... This meant that an increasingly secular and scientific society could no longer find meaning in Christianity as it had in the past. Where could a person turn in search of the lost meaning, having lost the opportunity to turn to God? Nietzsche had his own scenario for the development of events.

The Superman is the goal that must be achieved in order to return to man the lost meaning. The very word "superman" Nietzsche borrowed from Goethe's "Faust", but put into it a completely different, his own meaning. What was the origin of this new image?

Nietzsche traces 2 concepts of the development of events: one of them is based on Darwin's biological theory of the constant development of the evolutionary process leading to the emergence of a new biological species, and thus considered the creation of a superman as the next point in development. But in connection with the extremely long path of this process, Nietzsche, impetuous in his impulses, could not wait so long, and in his work a different concept appears, according to which man is presented as something final, and the superman is the most perfect human type.

On the way to the superman, it is necessary to go through several stages in the development of the human spirit:

The state of a camel (the state of slavery - "you must", putting pressure on a person.
The state of the lion (the throwing off of the shackles of slavery and the creation of "new values". This stage serves as the beginning of the evolution of man into a superman.
The state of the child (period of creativity)

What is he - the crown of creation, the superman?

According to Nietzsche's idea of the superman, anyone can and should become such, regardless of nationality and social status. First of all, this is a person who controls his own destiny, who stands above the concept of good from evil and independently chooses moral rules for himself. He is characterized by spiritual creativity, complete concentration, the will to power, super-individualism. This is a person free, independent, strong, not in need of compassion and free from compassion for others.

The goal of the superman's life is the search for truth and overcoming oneself. He is freed from morality, religion and authority.

Will comes to the fore in Nietzsche's philosophy. The essence of life is the will to power, which brings meaning and order to the chaos of the universe.

Nietzsche is called the great moral subverter and nihilist, and his ideas about the need to build the morality of strong people instead of the Christian religion, built on the principle of compassion, are associated with the ideology of fascism.

Philosophies of Nietzsche and Nazi ideology

Followers of the connection between Nietzsche's philosophy and fascism cite his words about a beautiful blond beast that can go wherever he wants in search of prey and the desire for victory, as well as Nietzsche's calls for the establishment of a "new order" with a "ruler of the people" at the head. However, when studying the works of the greatest philosopher, one can notice that his positions and the positions of the Third Reich are in many ways diametrically opposed.

Often, phrases taken out of context acquire a different meaning, completely far from the original - in relation to the works of Nietzsche, this is especially evident when many of the quotations from his works take only what lies on the surface and do not reflect the deep meaning of his teachings.

Nietzsche openly declared that he did not support German nationalism and anti-Semitism, as evidenced by his conflict with his sister after her marriage to a man who shared these views.

But how could the bloody dictator of the Third Reich pass by such an idea, when it was so ... suited to his painful perception of his role in the history of the world? He considered himself the very superman whose appearance Nietzsche had predicted.

There is information that on Hitler's birthday, Nietzsche made an entry in his diary: “I can accurately predict my fate. Someday my name will be closely associated and associated with the memory of something terrible and monstrous.

Unfortunately, the grim omen of the great philosopher came true.

Was there a place for compassion in the idea of the superman in the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche?

The question is by no means idle. Yes, the ideal of the superman denies this virtue, but only in terms of expressing the weakness of a spineless, passive being. Nietzsche does not deny the very feeling of compassion as the ability to feel the suffering of other people. Zarathustra says:

Let your compassion be guessing: so that you know in advance whether your friend wants compassion.

The fact is that compassion and pity can not always and not everyone have a good and beneficial effect - they can offend someone. If we consider Nietzsche's "giving virtue", then the object is not one's own "I", not selfish compassion, but the desire to bestow others. Thus, compassion should be altruistic, and not in the framework of adding this act to the list of your good deeds.

Conclusion

What are the fundamental principles of Nietzsche's idea of the superman, which we will learn after reading the work "Thus says Zarathustra"? Oddly enough, it is unequivocally difficult to answer this question - everyone makes something for himself, accepting one and denying the other.

In his work, the great philosopher condemns the society of small, gray and submissive people, seeing them as a great danger, and opposes the depreciation of the human personality, its individuality and originality.

Nietzsche's main idea of the superman is the idea of the elevation of man.

He makes us think, and his imperishable work will always excite a person who is in search of the meaning of life. And can Nietzsche's idea of the superman serve to gain happiness? Hardly... Looking back at the pain-filled life path of this talented person and his monstrous loneliness that consumed him from the inside, we cannot say that the ideas he formulated made him happy.

Nietzsche reveals this ideal in greater detail in his work Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883-1886). “In form, this large passionate book is a story about the wanderings of Zarathustra, a character based on the image of the Iranian prophet of the sixth century BC Zoroaster (Zarathustra is a Latinized form of this name), but conformed to Nietzsche’s poetic and philosophical intention.” (5, p.589-590) Researchers note that this book “is built as a kind of travesty gospel: it is enough to listen to the style and turns of speech of Zarathustra, his appeal to his students, talking in parables and images, riddles and answers, etc. Then Zarathustra appeared as a new Christ, or rather, an anti-Christ, replacing Him and putting forward new values. (11, p.19)

“The image of Zarathustra,” testifies the sister of the philosopher, “was presented to my brother from his earliest youth; he wrote to me once that as a child he saw a great Persian in a dream. (23, p. 285) In his book, Nietzsche “opposed European Christianity to Eastern religions, beginning with the Persian Zarathushtra and ending with the ancient Indian Manu.<…>It is characteristic that it is the Persian who is taken, because it was the Persians who most closely came into contact with the first Europeans - the Greeks, and it was they who wanted to destroy the newly emerged European civilization (Greek-Persian wars). Interestingly, the Persian kings Darius and Xerxes, who fought with the Greeks, professed, according to the researchers, the teachings of Zoroaster. (11, p.24)

“The historical Zarathustra (Zoroaster) believed that the world is the scene of an all-encompassing conflict between two cosmic forces, one of which is good, the other is evil. Our duty in this struggle, taught Zarathustra, is to take the side of the forces of light. But since Nietzsche was "beyond good and evil," he did not believe in the cosmology of the Zen Avesta. (7, p.236) Nietzsche himself writes about the real and creatively transformed image of Zarathustra as follows: “... what gives this Persian a completely exceptional position in history is the complete opposite with my ideas. Zarathustra was the first to see in the struggle between good and evil the main lever that controls the movement of things - the processing of moral concepts into metaphysical ones, what are the force, the cause, the goal in itself - this is whathis meaning. But this question itself, if posed, would, in essence, contain its own answer. Zarathustracreated this is a fatal delusion - morality, therefore, he must also be the first togot to know his.<…>Zarathustra is more truthful than any other thinker. His teaching, and it alone, declares truthfulness to be the highest virtue - as opposed tocowardice idealists who take flight before reality; there is more purely physical courage in Zarathustra than in all thinkers put together. speak the truth andgood archery: such is the Persian virtue.<…>The self-overcoming of morality through truthfulness, the self-overcoming of moralists by turning into its own opposite - into "I": this is what the name of Zarathustra means in my mouth.(23, p. 297) In other words, “since Zarathustra was the first to make the mistake of believing that moral values are objective characteristics of the universe, he should be the first to correct the mistake and agitate in favor of a new philosophy.” (7, p.236)

Nietzsche's Zarathustra says that "humanity, as such, has no single purpose or universal morality: “A thousand goals have existed until now, for there have been a thousand peoples. What is still missing is a chain for a thousand heads, a single goal is missing. Humanity has no purpose yet.”(16, p.44) Zarathustra wants to fill this moral gap and announces the goal that unites people. This goal is ubermensch (superman)." (7, p.236)

“Usually, researchers and commentators note confidently that the thinker got the word “superman” from Goethe's Faust. But it is worth peering into the text of Faust to see a very ironic use of this concept. Called by Faust's spell, the Spirit mockingly throws him: "WelcherbarmlichGrauen/FatUbermenschendich! WoistderSeeleRuf?"usw. (Or in literal translation: "What a pitiful fear has seized you, superman! Where is the call of the soul?" etc.) That is, the positive meaning of this word is absent in Faust. True, we can find about the possibility of a person growing into something higher in Dante:

"Prehumanity fit into words

It is forbidden; my example is close in signs,

But the experience itself is the grace of the Divine.

Dante. The Divine Comedy.

Paradise. Song one.

Dante uses the word "trasumanar" - transhumanization, transformation into something more than a person. However, the great Italian poet and thinker believed that a person can become more than a man, a superman, not in spite of, but only thanks to the help of God. It can be assumed that Nietzsche, who admired the Renaissance, knew these lines of Dante, the lines are very serious in contrast to Goethe's irony, but it seems that he opposed both the great German and the great Italian poet. (11, p.18-19)

It is significant that the American researcher A. Danto left the German term untranslated, since the word "superman" (in English "Superman", "Overman") cannot but be misleading. However, what is an ubermensch (superman)? “As an ideal to which we must strive in our human form, this idea appears as an exclusively indefinite and non-concrete goal.<…>The Ubermensch (overman) is contrasted with what Nietzsche calls "the last man" (derLetzteMensch) and who strives to be as much like everyone else as possible, who is happy simply because he is happy: " Happiness is found by us,” the last people say and blink.”(16, p.12) This is the herd man of his contemporary era, and Nietzsche-Zarathustra despises him.” (7, p.238) In one of his works, the thinker wrote: “ “... the goal of mankind cannot lie at the end of it, but onlyin its most perfect copies. Everyone can become this "perfect copy", but not everyone realizes this potential possibility; the statement of this sad fact makes Nietzsche turn not to to each, and to chosen."(8, p.110) And Zarathustra says:

“Man is something that must be transcended. What have you done to surpass him?

All beings have hitherto created something higher than themselves; and you want to be the ebb of this great wave and return to the state of the beast rather than surpass man?<…>

Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the superman, a rope over an abyss.<…>

What is important in a person is that he is a transition, not a goal: in a person you can only love what he is.transition anddeath.

I love those who do not know how to live otherwise than to perish, for they go over the bridge.

I love great haters, for they are great admirers and arrows of yearning for the other shore.<…>

I love the one who justifies the people of the future and redeems the people of the past: for he wants death from the people of the present.

I love him who punishes his God, because he loves his God: for he must perish from the wrath of his God.<…>

I love him whose soul is overflowing, so that he forgets himself, and all things are contained in him: thus all things become his ruin.”(16, p.8,10-11)

“Man is both transition and death. We transcend ourselves by overcoming something in ourselves, and this is what perishes and is left by us. We are dying mainly as human beings in order to become something higher. Human life there is (or should be) a sacrifice in the name of something not trans- or extrahuman, but in the name of the achievable for us, a sacrifice that gives us the strength to overcome (partially) ourselves. Unlike the ascetic ideal, this ideal is not demoralizing. It does not emphasize our worthlessness, but defines our virtues as being in the process of change. We transcend yesterday's selves, but have not yet grown up to future selves, and we have to find a more elevated image of ourselves as living beings. Ubermensch (superman) is not a blond beast. The blond beast is left behind, hopefully forever. The Ubermensch (superman) is ahead.” (7, p.238-239)

The complexity of the perception of this problem by readers of Nietzsche and, in particular, the aforementioned substitution of concepts is due to the fact that “his books are not only works of art in themselves, they require art from the reader, because reading Nietzsche is a kind of art where straightforwardness is completely unacceptable and rudeness and where, on the contrary, the maximum flexibility of the mind, a sense of irony, slowness are needed. Anyone who takes Nietzsche literally, “really”, who believes him, it is better not to read him,” said the great German writer Thomas Mann. (14, p.386)

“However, the subject of the ubermensch (superman) is, of course, not only about stopping doing something that we did before, but about moving in a new direction. But where? To what end point? Perhaps Nietzsche deserves the reproach for leaving this question open to such an extent. His sister assured Hitler that he and there is the one whom the brother had in mind when he spoke of the ubermensch (superman). Older readers believed that Nietzsche was referring to some specific image taken at least from the past.<…>But there really is no point in looking back for examples of the past, since there has never been a single ubermensch (superman) in our history. (7, p.239)

“There has never been a superman! I saw both naked, the biggest and the smallest man.

They are too similar to each other. Indeed, even the greatest of them I found too human!(16, p.66)

“... This German Raskolnikov was honored, with an eye on Napoleon, to solve the rebus of his own life: “trembling creature” or “superman”. (19, p.17) “According to Nietzsche, on the way to achieving perfection, a threefold transformation of the essence of a human being into a superhuman principle is necessary. In the speech "On the Three Transformations" Zarathustra indicates three stages or metamorphoses of the human spirit, corresponding to the three stages of the ascending formation of man into the ideal type of superman.

At the initial stage, the human spirit is symbolized by a camel laden with a load of numerous emasculated commandments that have lost the meaning of traditions and dead authorities.

At the second stage - the transformation of a camel into a lion - a person is freed from the fetters that bind him on the way to the superman, and wins for himself the freedom to create "new values".<…>Dissatisfaction with oneself awakens in a person, the desire to become the master of his virtues. Zarathustra calls this state "the hour of great contempt": “What is high that you can experience? This is the hour of great contempt. The hour when your happiness becomes disgusting to you, as well as your reason and your virtue.(16, p.9)<…>Great contempt, the rejection of those teachings that hinder the free development of the individual, preaching the "equality of people", and the rejection of pessimism, represent the last steps on the path of ascent to the superman. Nietzsche interprets pessimism broadly, meaning both the metaphysical doctrine (stating that non-being is better than being) and the ethical doctrine (considering the body as an evil and sinful principle in nature): “I do not follow your path, you despisers of the body! For me, you are not a bridge leading to the superman!”(16, p.25)<…>

The final metamorphosis - the transformation of the lion into a child - represents a positive stage in the emergence of the superhuman type. Infancy symbolizes the affirmation of life: "A child is innocence and forgetfulness, a new beginning, a game, a self-rolling wheel, an initial movement, a holy word of affirmation."(16, p.19) He who enters the path of man accepts life, blessing it, and in this sense is the redeemer of earthly reality: ""And here is my blessing, says Zarathustra , -above every thing to be its own sky, its round dome, its azure bell and eternal tranquility - and blessed is he who so blesses! For all things are baptized at the spring of eternity on the other side of good and evil ... "(16, p.118) Acceptance and justification of life is the starting point "the way of the creator".(20, p.75-76)

“Nietzsche's position here is on the side of a person capable of a feat, of overcoming himself. Existence is not vicious from the very beginning, it became so because a person stopped believing in himself, chose the path of the weak. Man needs to overcome himself. He has the right to expect to be treated not as someone who needs a victim. The conviction that a person is weak also causes the conviction that he will necessarily accept the sacrifice, needs it, sacrificing to him, he is deprived of choice, his freedom is limited. (15, p. 100) And the “mysterious “Self”, associated by Nietzsche with the human body, is the subconscious, deep fullness of the personality, in which there is no difference between soul and body and which completely determines all the aspirations of the soul and body. Nietzsche mentions this Self only to reject the views "those who despise the body" and this does not allow him to more clearly formulate the idea that it is the Self that is the driving, that creative force that recreates man and leads him to the state denoted by the term "superman". (8, p.111)

“There is some irony in the fact,” writes A. Danto, “that Nietzsche is the least original where he turned out to be the most influential. We are talking about an ancient, almost pagan ideal, namely, that passions should be curbed, not suppressed, in contrast to the position of those who profess abstinence, hiding vicious aspirations, and this was the official moral recommendation until very recently. Therefore, the ubermensch (superman) is not a blond giant overpowering his smaller brethren. This is just a joyful, innocent, free human being, possessing instinctive urges, which, however, do not enslave him. He is the master and not the slave of his impulses, and therefore he is able to make something out of himself, rather than become the product of instinctive manifestations or external obstacles. Beyond this, Nietzsche talks little about the details, except for the expression of implicit praise for those whose passions are turned towards the creation of scientific, artistic or philosophical works. He made the idea of aubermensch (superman) fluid rather than stable, so that it would be given value by those of us who succeeded in realizing it. If the ubermensch (superman) was perceived as a bully whose joy lies in a brute demonstration of strength, then Nietzsche has only himself to blame.<…>His greatest misfortune was the literalism with which he was interpreted even by his most sympathetic critics." (7, p. 240-241)

Of course, “... this type is not a kind of symbol, a promise of distant, dark millennia, a new species in the Darwinian sense, about which we cannot know anything and to put which as a guiding star would, perhaps, be simply ridiculous,” wrote the philosopher’s sister. (23, p.287) A. Danto points to the same. "Nietzsche believed that the ideal of the ubermensch (superman) could not be reached automatically, in the course of the natural course of events. In this respect, his teaching is anything but a kind of Darwinism. Indeed, we know that Nietzsche believed that survival and dominance unfit and that more and more large quantity individuals who become more and more similar to each other will eventually have to be overwhelmed by their numbers exceptional personalities who could break through to a new perspective and a higher form of life. "(7, pp. 241-242) Nietzsche writes a lot about "last man", but, according to the exact remark of A. Danto, "in reality, Nietzsche did not believe that "last man"<…>could exist. There will not be and cannot be the last stage in human development, or anything like that." (7, p. 242) In this regard, Nietzsche develops the idea "eternal return". Under "eternal return" Nietzsche meant "not that dissimilar events repeat themselves, not that similar examples always fall under the same law, nothing that ordinary common sense might suggest about his idea - he meant that all concrete and certain things keep coming back again and again, namely those same things, and not just their likeness". (7, p. 244) "The image of a circle - eternal changes amidst eternal repetition - is a symbol, a mysterious sign above the front door to Nietzsche's teaching about the superman." (20, p. 72)

"Teaching about "eternal return" entails the meaninglessness of what is happening, and the doctrine of obermensch is a kind of demand addressed to the will of man for such a meaning to exist. These two ideas are related. As usual, Zarathustra always returns:

"... I will forever return to the same life, in great and small, to teach again about the eternal return of all things,

- in order to repeat the word about the great noon of the earth and man, in order to again proclaim to people about the overman.

I have said my word, I am broken on my word: this is how my eternal destiny wants ... "

It doesn't matter that we disappear and come back and disappear again. The important thing is that we do it forever, the meaning that we put into our lives is important, the joy of overcoming is important, no matter what our lot is. And all this is done precisely for the cause, and not for the sake of some benefits - they will always be the same. What we do has an exclusively internal, personal meaning, or it has no meaning at all. It is we who give meaning and meaning to existence. We must take on this work if our life is to have meaning (though we cannot change it according to our wishes): we must stand up for ourselves, fulfilling our destiny.<…>Stated as an imperative: do (or be) as you would like to act, in exactly the same way (or be exactly the same) an infinite number of times for all eternity. If people follow this rule unswervingly, they will get rid of the feeling ressentiment. In existentialist terms, this is an argument for authenticity. It excludes the very possibility of another life, in heaven or hell, recognizing only the eternal return to what we are in this life. Instead of dreaming about another world, it is better to realize what a liberating power the proposed view of the world has. (20, p.72) According to Yu.V. to create an infinite number of times of oneself and new values” (20, p. 72)

Superman through the eyes of thinkers XIX-XXcenturies

Unfortunately, many researchers to this day perceive the concept of the superman in an unnecessarily straightforward, simplified way. Textbooks for universities present the opposition of the superman to the crowd as a division of people into "lower" and "higher", slaves and masters, in which "the anti-democratism of Nietzscheism was clearly manifested." (25, p. 326) L. V. Blinnikov, author of the educational dictionary-reference book “Great Philosophers”, indicates that morality “manifests itself in Nietzsche in the form of the superiority of aristocrats, masters over other people - slaves, inferiors. Nietzsche approaches morality only from the standpoint of the opposition between master and slave morality. (2, p. 246) Indeed, Nietzsche "was not a champion of the democratic ideal of the equality of people. This doctrine, he believed, only levels the quality of life, equalizing the outstanding and mediocre. Individuals vary immensely in abilities and talents, there are basic qualitative differences that determine them personal inequality. (5, p.588) From this passage we see that Nietzsche had in mind the so-called aristocracy of the spirit.

I would like to dwell on the contradictory assessments of Nietzsche's heritage and, above all, his concept of the superman. An enthusiastic assessment of Nietzsche was given by the brilliant Austrian writer Stefan Zweig. He calls the philosopher "Don Juan of knowledge" and writes the following: "... an inquisitive thirst that is not satisfied by anything<…>. No knowledge can attract him for a long time, there is no truth to which he would take an oath of allegiance, with which he would be engaged as with "his system", with "his teaching." All truths enchant him, but not a single one is able to keep him. (27, p. 326-327) "Be who you are"- the only commandment that can be found in his writings. "(27, p. 347) Stefan Zweig characterizes Friedrich Nietzsche as a "educator of freedom" and, according to the writer, his true feat is best expressed<…>Jakob Burchardt, writing to him that his books "increased independence in the world". (27, p.387,389)

The assessment of one of the greatest writers in Germany, Thomas Mann, is not so unambiguous, although he treated Friedrich Nietzsche as a person with deep sympathy. In the article "Nietzsche's Philosophy in the Light of Our Experience" he points out that "Nietzsche was born to be a psychologist, and psychology was his dominant passion; in essence, knowledge and psychology have the same passion for him ... "(14, p. 365), and emphasizes that Nietzsche's "immoralism" is the self-abolition of morality from the motives of truthfulness, caused by a kind of excess of morality; it is a kind of moral waste, which is confirmed by Nietzsche's words about hereditary moral riches, which, no matter how much they spend or scatter, never become scarce. (14, p. 369) For, according to Thomas Mann, “no one served suffering more faithfully and more faithfully than he,” and Nietzsche himself wrote: "The place occupied by a person inhierarchical ladder, determined by the suffering he can endure."(14, p.368) At the same time, Mann believes that “it is time to abandon the view of Nietzsche’s philosophy as a bunch of random aphorisms: his philosophy, no less than Schopenhauer’s philosophy, is a harmonious system that has developed from one grain, from one all-pervading idea. But in Nietzsche this original, basic idea is, in its entirety, in its root, an aesthetic idea, and by that alone, his vision of the world and his thinking must come into irreconcilable contradiction with all socialism. In the end, there can be only two worldviews, only two internal positions: aesthetic and moral. And if socialism is a worldview built on the strictest moral foundations, then Nietzsche is an esthete, the most complete, most hopeless esthete that the history of culture has ever known...”. (14, p.384-385)

(We note in brackets that a comparison of Nietzscheism with socialism can, however, reveal not only the fundamental differences between them, but also some of their similarities. For example, this applies to the utopianism of both teachings. mind and human will.<…>If Marx overcoming the phenomenon of alienation in modern world saw in the utopian project of the future supersociety, Nietzsche saw salvation in the project of the superman. Marx's utopia was built on the mystification of the social nature of man, Nietzsche's utopia - on the aestheticization of his volitional impulse. (3, p.9)

Albert Camus noted that “Nietzsche, at least in his doctrine of the superman, and Marx in his theory of a classless society, both replace the other world with the most distant future.<…>The fundamental difference between the two thinkers lies in the fact that Nietzsche, in anticipation of the superman, offered to say “yes” to what is, and Marx to what is in the process of becoming. For Marx, nature is that which is conquered in order to subordinate history. For Nietzsche, this is what one submits to, in order to subjugate history." According to Camus, "Marxism-Leninism really adopted Nietzsche's will to power, forgetting some of Nietzsche's virtues." (10, p.179))

But back to Thomas Mann. Admiring the early works of Nietzsche, he gives an extremely low rating to the book Thus Spoke Zarathustra. According to him, this image “consists of rhetoric, convulsive attempts at wit, a tortured, unnatural tone and dubious prophecies - this is a helpless scheme with a claim to monumentality, sometimes quite touching, most often pitiful; absurdity, from which there is only one step to the ridiculous. (14, p.356) The writer points out that “Nietzsche’s endless mockery of "subordinate caste socialism”, which he stigmatizes as a hater of higher life, in the end, convince us that Nietzsche's superman is only an idealized image of a fascist leader and that Nietzsche himself, with all his philosophy, was nothing more than a trailblazer, spiritual creator and herald of fascism in Europe and worldwide. And yet I am inclined to reverse cause and effect, - writes Thomas Mann, - because, as I think, fascism is not the creation of Nietzsche, but vice versa: Nietzsche is the creation of fascism ... ". Nietzsche, the writer explains, only caught the first signs of the era of fascism. (14, p. 379) Mann is convinced that “all Nietzsche’s fanfare regarding the great functions of war as a guardian of culture and a factor of natural selection is only the fantasies of a person who has no idea what war is, living in an era of long, lasting world and securely secured bank deposits, in an era that bored itself with its impenetrable well-being. (14, p.376) “If the words “by their fruits you will know them” are true, then for Nietzsche there is no excuse.” (14, p.380)

Thus, we can see that, despite his calls for a creative, non-literal reading of Nietzsche, Mann was just as deluded as those to whom he addressed these calls. However, a sober, unbiased attitude to the works of Nietzsche was hardly possible for a person for whom memories of the horrors of Nazism were still fresh (this article was written in 1947). Nevertheless, Thomas Mann concludes his article with the following words: “... although his path was false and led him to a heap of absurd delusions, his love still belonged to the future, and future generations, just like us, whose youth is due to him so many will be riveted to this image for a long time to come, full of fragile and inspiring respect for tragedy, illuminated by the formidable lightning of the pass that separates two centuries. (14, p.391)

However, Nobel Prize winner Bertrand Russell does not find anything positive in Nietzsche's legacy. He points out that Nietzsche “invented no new special theories in ontology and epistemology; the most important is, first of all, his ethics, as well as his sharp historical criticism. (17, p. 693) Russell believes that “it cannot be denied that Nietzsche had a great influence, but not on specialist philosophers, but on people of literature and art. It must also be admitted that his prophecies about the future are still more correct than the predictions of liberals and socialists. If a Nietzsche is just a symptom of a disease, then this disease must be very widespread in the modern world. However, there is much in it that should be dismissed as mere megalomania." (17, p.698) He calls the book “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” “pseudo-prophetic”. (17, p. 696) He is convinced that Nietzsche “never crossed his mind that the striving for power with which he endows his superman is itself generated by fear. Those who are not afraid of their neighbors see no need to dominate them.” Moreover, "he never imagined a man who, having all the fearlessness and stubborn pride of a superman, nevertheless does not inflict suffering, because he has no such desire." (17, p. 699-700) He points out that Nietzsche's ethics contains in its emotional basis "a complete lack of sympathy (Nietzsche's sermons are often directed against compassion, and it is felt that in this respect it was not difficult for him to follow his commandments)". (17, p.702)

Ethical views of Nietzsche Russell in his work "History of Western Philosophy" formulates as follows: "the victors in the war and their descendants are usually biologically higher than the vanquished, therefore it is desirable that all power be in their hands and leadership be carried out in their own interests." (17, p. 701) Russell does not do a deep, thoughtful analysis and writes about it himself: “I dislike Nietzsche because he likes to contemplate suffering, because he elevated vanity to the degree of duty, because the people he is more I admired everything - conquerors, famous for their ability to take people's lives. But I think, - continues Russell, - that the decisive argument against Nietzsche's philosophy, as well as against any unpleasant, but internally consistent ethics, lies not in the realm of facts, but in the realm of emotions. Nietzsche despises universal love, and I regard it as the driving force behind everything I desire for the world. Nietzsche's followers have had their fortunes, but we can hope that they will soon come to an end." (17, p. 704) Here, of course, we are again dealing with a superficial, aggressively biased reading of Nietzsche, moreover, Russell's statements are not sufficiently reasoned and look unconvincing.

A completely different assessment of the work of Nietzsche is given by Albert Camus, who has been repeatedly mentioned by us. In his opinion, one of the key moments in the work of Nietzsche is a responsibility. Here is what he writes in his famous work "Rebellious Man": "As soon as a person ceases to believe in God and eternal life, he "becomes responsible for everything that exists, for everything that, being born in torment, is doomed to suffer all his life."<…>A man of a free mind, Nietzsche knew that the freedom of the spirit is not a convenience, but a greatness that is sought after and occasionally achieved in a grueling struggle. He knew that for those who want to be above the law, there is a great risk of falling below the law. This is why Nietzsche realized that the mind finds its true liberation only by assuming new obligations.<…>In other words, in Nietzsche's philosophy, rebellion leads to asceticism. And the deeper logic of Nietzsche's reasoning replaces Karamazov's "if there is nothing true, then everything is permitted" by the formula "if there is nothing true, then nothing is permitted." That is, “if a person does not want to die in a noose thatstrangles him, he doesn'tthere will be nothing but one blowcut the rope and create your own values". (10, p.172-173) “Total acceptance of total necessity – such is the paradoxical definition of freedom. Question: "Free from what?" - is replaced in this case by the question: "Free for what?"<…>Such acceptance comes from a determined will to be who you are in the world as it is.<…>In fact, the only deity is the world. To partake of his divinity, it is enough to say “yes” to him. "Do not pray, but bless" and the whole earth will become the habitation of the gods.” (10, p.174-175) This is one of the most striking examples of the fact that Nietzsche's views had a tremendous impact on the philosophy of existentialism, of which Camus was an outstanding representative.

It is also impossible to forget that the works of Friedrich Nietzsche evoked the liveliest response in Russia, moreover, even during the lifetime of the philosopher. In this regard, one cannot ignore the problem of evaluating Nietzsche's views by Vladimir Solovyov. First of all, this concerns the concept of the superman that we are considering. Solovyov writes: “The evil side of Nietzscheism is striking. Contempt for weak and sick humanity, a pagan view of strength and beauty, self-appropriation in advance some exceptional superhuman significance<…>- this is the obvious delusion of Nietzscheism. Wherein lies the truth by which it is strong and attractive to the living soul? The distinction between truth and error does not even have two separate words for itself. One and the same word combines both the falsehood and the truth of this amazing doctrine. It's all about how we understand how we pronounce the word "superman". (22, p.628)

“At the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. the problem of the superman becomes one of the most discussed in Russia. This fact was mainly a consequence of the boom in the popularity of Nietzsche's works, but to a large extent it was also due to Solovyov's work. The religious pathos of Solovyov's philosophy prepared Russian humanists for interested attention and final acceptance of precisely the "superhuman" aspect of Nietzsche's thought.<…>D. Merezhkovsky accurately conveyed the general mood of those years: “The Superman is the last point, the sharpest peak of the great mountain range of European philosophy, with its age-old roots of an indignant, solitary and isolated personality. There is nowhere to go further: a cliff and an abyss, a fall or a flight: the superhuman path is religion. The bright and bold thoughts of the German philosopher gave a powerful impetus to the emergence of numerous Russian-language literature on the superhuman principle. "Superman" and "Superhumanity", "God-Man" and "God-Manhood", "Man-God", "Christ Man" and "Cathedral Mankind", "Perfect Man", "Higher Man", "Coming Man", "Last Man" and etc., - the list of heroes of the pages of literary and philosophical journals of those years is rich in symbolic names for the main problem of the Silver Age era - the search for ways to the religious renewal of personality and culture.<…>

Despite the fact that formally the vast majority of publications on Nietzsche's motifs were of a polemical nature in relation to the concept of the German philosopher, works on the superhuman theme constituted an independent layer in the intellectual history of Russia at that time. Often, Nietzsche's superman served only as a mask, under which the original features of a peculiar concept of this or that author were hidden," notes Yu. (20, pp. 69-70) She considers it significant that these concepts “were often not built directly on Nietzsche’s image, which was vague, but revealed and varied the semantic meaning that is inherent in the very form of the Russian word. In Russian “over”, unlike the German uber, first of all, a qualitative assessment is concluded, “over” is the highest level of quality, therefore it is no coincidence that in the minds of Russian intellectuals the path to the “superman” existed as a path to “elevation”, “improvement” human type, regardless of whether this "elevation" will go on the biological or spiritual plane.<…>For Nietzsche, a sensitive philologist, the word Ubermensch, according to the meaning of the prefix uber - "beyond the limit", meant mainly something that was beyond the concept of "man", "man overcome". (20, p.70)

Let's try to analyze the views of Nietzsche and Solovyov on this problem. According to Yu. V. Sineokoy, "Soloviev saw the goal of mankind in overcoming death, Nietzsche - in overcoming eternity." (20, p.71) In the article “The Idea of the Superman”, Solovyov notes that ““man” and “mortal” are synonyms.<…>The animal does not struggle (consciously) with death and, consequently, cannot be conquered by it, and therefore its mortality is not a reproach to it and not a characteristic; man is first of all and especially "mortal" - in the sense conquered, overcome death. And if so, then, then, the "superman" must be, first of all and in particular winner of death- the liberated liberator of mankind from those essential conditions that make death necessary, and, therefore, performer those conditions under which it is possible either not to die at all, or, having died, to rise again for eternal life. (22, p. 632-633) Yu. V. Sineokaya points out that, “in fact, both thinkers came to the same conclusion from different angles: the God-man Solovyov, on the way to resurrection, needs to achieve perfection; Nietzsche's superman is doomed to eternal return, and therefore must strive for perfection. Solov'ev's divine-human ideal, as well as Nietzsche's ideal of the superman, was based on the recognition of the unconditional value of human individuality, the need to elevate and ennoble the individual, to achieve the fullest possible perfection of the human type and human culture. (20, p.71)

According to Yu. V. Sineokaya, “in Nietzsche's ideal of the superman, the transition from individualism to universalist tendencies is obvious. In the world of eternal return, striving for the superman is equivalent to a lost faith in God. “Once they said: God, - when they looked at the distant seas; but now I taught you to say: Superman.(16, p.60) However, Nietzsche himself does not identify faith in the superman with religious faith. “Could you create God? “So don’t talk to me about all kinds of gods!” But you certainly could create a superman."(16, p.60) A person is able to create an immanent ideal of a genius, a man-god - and cannot rise further than this. (20, p. 73) A. R. Gevorkyan notes that “Nietzsche did not seek God, moreover, he believed that only in the situation of the death of God is it possible to realize the divine in man. Hence his famous position<…>"If he[God] existed, it should be abolished.(6, p.122-123)

V. Solovyov adheres to completely different views. His ethics is “the ethics of the speedy growth of mankind into the Kingdom of God, the coming of resurrection and immortality. The Kingdom of God descends from above, God-manhood ascends to meet. Here ethics is not a mechanism for individual salvation, but a way to accelerate the implementation of the historical project. Solovyov does not and cannot have a superman as a representative of a special breed of people. With him, any person is involved in the Divine, and therefore is a god (super) person. Mankind is mortal, but subject to the indispensable resurrection from the dead in full, without exception - whether a sinner or a righteous person. One of the names of Solovyov's God (super) humanity is Sophia. (20, p. 73) And Solovyov writes the following: “Even if the image of a true “superman”, a real winner of death and “the firstborn from the dead”, did not arise in our memory,<…>then, in any case, there is a superhuman way which many have gone, are going and will go for the benefit of all, and, of course, our most important vital interest is that more people take this path, go straighter and further along it, because at the end of it is a complete and decisive victory over death." (22, p.633-634)

For Solovyov it is clear that "If the superman is not Christ, then he is Antichrist."(11, p. 21) Therefore, the possible consequences of the dissemination of this idea “seemed catastrophic to him. If the superman-antichrist appeared, then there will be an apocalypse.” (11, p. 22) But do not forget that Solovyov's Antichrist “has features not only of the Nietzsche superman. He is also a philanthropist and an opponent of war, like Leo Tolstoy; he solves all the economic problems of Europe, like the economist Marx; but, of course, the main thing in him is that he is a superman - and this is already Nietzsche. Three figures, designated by V.S. as the rulers of the thoughts of contemporary humanity, gave their colors to create the image. (11, p.22-23)

"Soloviev's participation in the discussion of Nietzsche's ideas played a huge role in the formation of Russian Nietzsche - he was the first Russian thinker who looked at Nietzsche's work from a religious point of view." (20, p. 76) However, S. Solovyov, the philosopher's nephew, rightly notes in his biography of V. Solovyov that "it was difficult for a philosopher who grew up on Kant and Hegel to understand the full significance of Nietzsche." (20, p. 76) The same Yu.V.<…>Nietzsche's philosophy for him is nothing more than an insignificant secondary phenomenon, hardly having any influence on the future of human culture and the development of morality, for "the resurrection of dead ideas is not terrible for the living." Solovyov's switch of attention to Nietzsche's idea of the superman opened up a new stage in his attitude towards Nietzsche. The theme of the superman becomes for Solovyov the central object of criticism in the work of the German thinker. In Nietzsche's superman - the prototype of the Antichrist - the religious philosopher saw the greatest danger threatening Christian culture. Solovyov in his works contrasts the ideal of Nietzsche with the true God-man - Jesus Christ, who conquered death by bodily resurrection.<…>

In the last years of his life, Solovyov's attitude to Nietzsche acquired a new shade. While remaining extremely wary, it becomes deeply interested and at the same time more rational. In the article "The Idea of the Superman", pointing to three fashionable trends in European thought at the end of the 19th century: "economic materialism" (Karl Marx), "abstract moralism" (Leo Tolstoy) and "demonism of the superman" (Friedrich Nietzsche), Solovyov gives priority to significance Nietzsche's teachings, emphasizing that the secret of its popularity is that it carries the answer to the spiritual needs of modern thinking people.<…>Solovyov admits that there is undoubtedly truth in Nietzsche's conception, but this truth is distorted. (20, p.77-78)

In addition, Solovyov "enthusiastically searched for Nietzsche's predecessors in intellectual history. In a lecture on Lermontov given in 1899, he called the poet Nietzsche's predecessor - a seduced demon of evil, cruelty, pride and voluptuousness.<…>In the essay "The Life Drama of Plato" (1898), Socrates is named as a kind of forerunner of Nietzsche, who embodied the idea of the superman not in theory, but in his personal destiny, and thereby proved the need for the arrival of a "real superman", i.e., the God-man. The death of Socrates, who exhausted the moral force of purely human wisdom with his noble death, became for Solovyov evidence of the impossibility for a person to fulfill his destiny, that is, to become a real superman, only by the power of the mind and moral will "(20, p. 78)

Nevertheless, despite the fact that "traces of internal controversy with Nietzsche and the Nietzsche cult of the superman and superhuman beauty can be found in almost all of Solovyov's later works, he did not leave any serious study of Nietzsche's work from a historical or metaphysical point of view and, unlike most of his contemporaries, he never tried to refute the teachings of Nietzsche as a philosophical problem. In most cases, Solovyov wrote about the views of the German philosopher exclusively as about aestheticism ... ". (20, p.78-79) “In him he finds not so much a superman as a superphilologist, referring to the brilliant style of the author of Zarathustra. (13, p. 523) At the same time, A. F. Losev was convinced that “Nietzsche was experiencing Vl. Solovyov is much deeper than he wrote about it. (13, p.523)

"Young thinkers of the turn of the century tried to combine the teachings of two philosophers in real life," however, "the two halves did not fit into a whole. After all, they are from different worlds, the border between which is overcoming death. Hence the broken personal destinies, hence the tragic outcome of the spiritual movement of the religious renaissance in Russia". (20, p.79) As an example, we can name the names of Konstantin Leontiev and Vasily Rozanov. Rozanov himself wrote about Leontiev as follows: “The fusion of Leontiev and Nietzsche is so striking that it<…>- like a comet that broke up into two, and now one half of it passes through Germany, and the other through Russia.<…>Leontiev had unheard-of audacity, like no other Christian before him, to express himself fundamentally against the fundamental, most important principle brought to earth by Christ - against meekness.<…>who knows and feels Leontiev, cannot but agree that in him this, in essence, "Nietzscheanism" was a direct, monstrous appetite, and that give it free will and power (with which Nietzsche would do nothing did), he would flood Europe with fire and blood in a monstrous turn of politics. (13, p.530-531) A A.F. Losev spoke about all three: “... to recognize God and at the same time strive to take his place means to preach Satanism. Nietzsche, Leontiev and Rozanov are the preachers of Satanism. (13, p. 532) For Losev, Nietzsche's superman is unambiguously equal to the Antichrist described by Solovyov ("A Brief Tale of the Antichrist").

The topic of this essay is directly related to the comparison of Nietzsche's views with the philosophy of F. M. Dostoevsky. "The statement about the similarity of the searches of Nietzsche and Dostoevsky is not new, it is quite common in critical literature." (8, p.104) Lev Shestov was one of the first to point out this similarity in his work “Dostoevsky and Nietzsche (philosophy of tragedy)”. (He also drew parallels between the concepts of Nietzsche and Leo Tolstoy in his work “The Good in the Teachings of Count Tolstoy and Nietzsche (Philosophy and Preaching).” In his opinion, Tolstoy’s moral aristocracy, which he calls “good”, “only differs in form from (28, p. 130)) I. I. Evlampiev notes that “between the views of Dostoevsky and Nietzsche there is more in common than different, of course, if we evaluate not the superficial level of their worldview, but its depth.<…>Despite the fact that Dostoevsky, of course, recognized the importance of Christianity as the basis of European culture, and Nietzsche just as unconditionally denied its positive role in the history of Europe, both of them in their searches tried to take positive elements from Christianity and, at the same time, radically broke with the most important provisions of the Christian tradition, which came into irreconcilable contradiction with the requirements of the new era. (8, pp. 103-104) (An interesting comparison of the two thinkers is given by Stefan Zweig: “Dostoevsky alone possesses the same clairvoyance of nerves<…>; but in truthfulness even Dostoevsky is inferior to Nietzsche. He can be unjust, biased in his knowledge, while Nietzsche, even in ecstasy, does not deviate a single step from justice. (27, p.338))

Many of the thoughts of the hero of the novel "Demons" by Kirillov surprisingly coincide with Nietzsche's reasoning about the superman: "Now a person is not yet that person. Will be new person, happy and proud. Whoever doesn't care whether he lives or not lives, he will be a new person. Whoever conquers pain and fear, that God himself will be. But that God won't." (8, p. 117) I. I. Evlampiev also points out that “Nietzsche in his life and his work appears as a typical hero of Dostoevsky. And if it were necessary to indicate more specifically whose history and whose fate Nietzsche embodied in real life, then the answer would be obvious: this is Kirillov. (8, p.108) At the same time, it is known that Nietzsche not only read this novel by Dostoevsky, but also outlined its fragments in detail. Moreover, he confessed in one of his letters: “I completely and completely believe you that it is in Russia that you can “perk up”; some Russian books, primarily by Dostoevsky<…>I regard it as one of the greatest reliefs of my life."(18, p.154) Therefore, such coincidences can in no way be accidental. You can read more about this in the article by this researcher "Dostoevsky and Nietzsche: on the way to a new metaphysics of man."

In Russian culture, there is another name closely associated with the embodiment of Nietzsche's philosophy, this is Andrei Bely. In the article "Friedrich Nietzsche", later included in the book "Arabesques", he gives a deep analysis of the work of the thinker. He also writes about the superman. "Individuality" is the very term used by Nietzsche in a symbolic and not in a methodological sense.<…>We do not know whether Nietzsche was still an individualist in the sense of the word that we put into him. (1, p. 185) “If he were among his own kind, perhaps he would replace the doctrine of the superman with the doctrine of the norm for the development of individuals: he would be a universalist, not an individualist.<…>There is a personality of Nietzsche. There is Nietzsche's doctrine of personality. It flows from his personality; it is not a theory. Superman is the name. Is there a name as well as a person? If yes, then in a symbolic sense. Rather, we are dealing with a dreaming slogan, an unconscious and, however, foreseeable norm of development.<…>. The creative dream is opposed to the reality that corrupts the personality. "The superman for Nietzsche is a more real dream than the real conditions of the environment." (1, p.180-181)

“The banal formula of Nietzsche’s philosophy is well known, or rather: well unknown, Andrey Bely said. - "Find new it will not be difficult for Nietzsche himself: even now Nietzsche is an inexhaustible source, although our entire era - drawn from him, still draws his living water ... so abundantly and so easily that we have a doubt: drawing from Nietzsche, do we draw are we... past Nietzsche?<…>Are we with Nietzsche or is he without us? No, we are not with him. We have already betrayed his path: we have turned into well-known nooks and crannies, disastrous for our children. (1, p.188-189, 191) Bely wrote these lines in 1908, what would he write thirty years later?

The posthumous fate of Nietzsche (instead of a conclusion)

“With the exception of Marx, in the history of human thought, the vicissitudes of Nietzsche's teachings are unparalleled; we will never make up for the injustice that has befallen him,” exclaimed Albert Camus. “Of course, history knows philosophical teachings that have been perverted and betrayed. But before Nietzsche and National Socialism, there was no example of a thought entirely sanctified by the nobility of tormenting a unique soul, was presented to the world by a parade of lies and monstrous piles of corpses in concentration camps.<…>Is it possible to repeat Nietzsche's desperate cry addressed to his era: My conscience and your conscience are no longer the same!”(10, p. 176) And, indeed, “the Nietzscheanism of the next decades, one might say, of the entire first half of our century, would be more correctly called not Nietzscheanism proper, but some Förster-Nietzscheanism."(19, p.36) Fyodor Stepun also wrote about Nietzsche: “His untruth and his rightness is that he can remain right only as long as he is tragic, lonely and incomprehensible. Any attempt to popularize it destroys it.” (11, p.21)

“The philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche is a unique and life-long experiment of self-destruction "creatures" in man for self-creation in him "creator" named "superman". (19, p. 23) And now “... Nietzsche, slandered, tabooed, struck down in cultural rights,<…>Let's hope this Nietzsche comes to an end." (19, p.43) It is possible that this essay, at least to a small extent, will contribute to the restoration of the good name of Friedrich Nietzsche.

Nietzsche's concept of the theory of the superman. What is wrong with Nietzsche's idea of ​​the superman Who is the author of the concept of the superman

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Introduction

1. Friedrich Nietzsche

2. The concept of the superman

2.1 The idea of ​​a superman

2.2 "Path" to the superman

2.3 The essence of the doctrine of the superman

Conclusion

Introduction

1. Friedrich Nietzsche

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche is the most prominent representative of the philosophical direction called "philosophy of life".

Conclusion

nietzsche philosophy overman

Similar Documents

2.2 "The ideal of man is the superman"

Formation of the image of the superman in the history of the development of society

Friedrich Nietzsche's Approach to the Superman

Biography facts

Years after Basel

to the world of philosophy

The most famous and discussed work of the great scientist: the idea of ​​the superman Friedrich Nietzsche

What is he - the crown of creation, the superman?

Philosophies of Nietzsche and Nazi ideology

Was there a place for compassion in the idea of ​​the superman in the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche?

Conclusion

Nietzsche's concept of the theory of the superman. What is wrong with Nietzsche's idea of the superman Who is the author of the concept of the superman

2.1 The idea of a superman

The most famous and discussed work of the great scientist: the idea of the superman Friedrich Nietzsche

Was there a place for compassion in the idea of the superman in the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche?