/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23506777]

How similar is Raskolnikov's idea of Napoleon and Muhammad to Nietzsche's übermensch?

[Anonymous No.23507022]

>>23506777
C&P is literally a refutation of le Ubermensch before it was even written. The idea of "rising above" conventional morality is what causes Raskolnikov so much anguish. I remember one section of the book where his friend Razumikhin comments why people are so obsessed with leaving humanity behind and acting like being human is something bad.

[Anonymous No.23507074]

>>23506777
Perhaps the closest anyone has gotten to the Ubermensch in modern times is Joseph Smith. He incarnated knew values in authentic imitation of the Old Testament's theomorphic men. Remember that Nietzsche was very fond of the Old Testament.

> You already guess it, I do not like the "New Testament"; it almost upsets me that I stand so isolated in my taste so far as concerns this valued, this over-valued Scripture; the taste of two thousand years is against me; but what boots it! "Here I stand! I cannot help myself"[5]—I have the courage of my bad taste. The Old Testament—yes, that is something quite different, all honour to the Old Testament! I find therein great men, an heroic landscape, and one of the rarest phenomena in the world, the incomparable naïveté of the strong heart; further still, I find a people.

[Anonymous No.23507342]

>>23507022
It's not a refutation. You could easily just say Raskolnikov was not an Ubermensch. He's what happens when a pleb tries to play Ubermensch.

[Anonymous No.23507348]

>>23506777
>Muhammad
>übermensch

muhammad was a pedo rapist who didn't accomplish anything of value in his life. The first 12 years of him preaching islam he managed to get less than 70 followers.
It was only after he started proclaiming infinite loot and woman/child rape, that other degenerates started noticing him.
islam died with muhammad who was assassinated by a jewish woman.
What muslims believe today is the version of islam their ulema invented centuries after muhammad's death.

[Anonymous No.23507378]

>>23507348
Now explain within the confines of Nietzsche's philosophy why being a rapist is bad.

[Anonymous No.23507405]

>>23507348
brother ewwww... ewwww brother...

[Anonymous No.23507448]

>>23507378
Its unhealthy and dysgenic. Nietzsche is actually pro-chastity for the most part.

I don’t believe mohhammed is a rapist, this fellow is just a bitter islamiphobic loser

[Anonymous No.23507462]

>>23507348
Rape is good, especially in our society where men are pussywhipped into being scared of women. As for pedophilia, it will be championed by future generations and the herd will find some other thing to moralize about.

[Anonymous No.23507841]

>>23507022
The main problem lies in a society built on nihilistic values (decadence). These letzte Mensch hinder the Ubermensch.

[Anonymous No.23507890]

>>23507378
>explain within the confines of Nietzsche's philosophy why being a rapist is bad

nta

Beyond Good and Evil, #194:
"The difference between men does not manifest itself only in the difference between the tables of the goods they possess but also in the fact that they consider different goods worth striving for and that they are at odds among themselves about what is more or less valuable, about the rank ordering of the commonly acknowledged goods—the difference becomes even clearer in what counts for them as really *having* and *possessing* something.

So far as a woman is concerned, for example, a more modest man considers having at his disposal her body and sexual gratification as a satisfactory and sufficient sign of having, of possession. Another man, with his more suspicious and more discriminating thirst for possessions sees the “question mark,” the fact that such a possession is only apparent, and wants a more refined test, above all, to know whether the woman not only gives herself to him but also for his sake gives up what she has or would like to have. Only then does he consider her “possessed.” A third man, however, is at this point not yet finished with his suspicion and desire to possess. He asks himself if the woman, when she gives up everything for him, is not doing this for something like a phantom of himself: he wants to be well known first, fundamentally, even profoundly, in order to be able, in general, to be loved. He dares to allow himself to be revealed. —Only then does he feel that the loved one is fully in his possession, when she is no longer deceived about him, when she loves him just as much for his devilry and hidden insatiability as for his kindness, patience, and spirituality.

One man wants to possess a people: and all the higher arts of Cagliostro and Cataline he thinks appropriate for this purpose. Another, with a more refined thirst for possession, tells himself “One is not entitled to deceive where one wants to possess.”—He is irritable and impatient at the idea that a mask of him rules the hearts of his people: “Hence I must *let* myself be known and, first of all, learn about myself!” "


tl;dr - being rapist means being unaesthetically crude: you only claim her body. Making a woman love you: you attempt to possess her very soul, thus outsourcing to her all the punishments for her thought-crimes against you.

[Anonymous No.23507925]

>>23507022
>C&P is literally a refutation of le Ubermensch before it was even written. The idea of "rising above" conventional morality is what causes Raskolnikov so much anguish.

"But one thing is the thought, another thing is the deed, and another thing is the idea of the deed. The wheel of causality doth not roll between them.
An idea made this pale man pale. Adequate was he for his deed when he did it, but the idea of it, he could not endure when it was done.
Evermore did he now see himself as the doer of one deed. Madness, I call this: the exception reversed itself to the rule in him.
The streak of chalk bewitcheth the hen; the stroke he struck bewitched his weak reason. Madness after the deed, I call this.
Hearken, ye judges! There is another madness besides, and it is *before* the deed. Ah! ye have not gone deep enough into this soul!
Thus speaketh the red judge: “Why did this criminal commit murder? He meant to rob.” I tell you, however, that his soul wanted blood, not booty: he thirsted for the happiness of the knife!
But his weak reason understood not this madness, and it persuaded him. “What matter about blood!” it said; “wishest thou not, at least, to make booty thereby? Or take revenge?”
And he hearkened unto his weak reason: like lead lay its words upon him—thereupon he robbed when he murdered. He did not mean to be ashamed of his madness.
And now once more lieth the lead of his guilt upon him, and once more is his weak reason so benumbed, so paralysed, and so dull.
Could he only shake his head, then would his burden roll off; but who shaketh that head?
What is this man? A mass of diseases that reach out into the world through the spirit; there they want to get their prey.
What is this man? A coil of wild serpents that are seldom at peace among themselves—so they go forth apart and seek prey in the world.
Look at that poor body! What it suffered and craved, the poor soul interpreted to itself—it interpreted it as murderous desire, and eagerness for the happiness of the knife.
Him who now turneth sick, the evil overtaketh which is now the evil: he seeketh to cause pain with that which causeth him pain. But there have been other ages, and another evil and good.
Once was doubt evil, and the will to Self. Then the invalid became a heretic or sorcerer; as heretic or sorcerer he suffered, and sought to cause suffering."