I recently watched that the nightmare before Christmas for the first time in like 25 years with my kids and I noticed it is rather Nietzshian. Arguably Jack skeleton becomes the overman by the end of it and that is the whole story.

In the beginning Jack is an artist, a creator of fright and in his own words, he is the best at what he does. Arguable he is the main creative drive of Halloween given that his performance is the central piece of the first song.

But eventually the challenge of Halloween becomes routine for him and he grows bored and loses himself to nihilism, wandering into the forest where he finds Christmas town. There he is enchanted but being a value creator he tries to make Christmas his own. However, he does this rationally with experimentation. Sally, who operates in the story more like the greek choice of instinct, keeps telling him that she FEELS this is wrong and Jack rationalized this away.

But this is where I think it becomes better, once he is shot down his song is sad, looking at what he does he feels bad, lamenting on his failures, but he quickly realizes that Halloween would never have understood Christmas and he tried his best on soared to great heights anyway and returns to being the pumpkin king, affirming what he previously rejected and being excited again for the eternal return of Halloween and saying (essentially) amor fati.

Anyway there are more things too, Halloween town is very dionysinan. The mayor is essentially the last man, he can't make any decisions without Jack, which also mirrors Nietzshe's view on politics.

I'm not sure how Christmas town and Santa Claus fit into this framing, or the villain Mr Oogie Boogie, but Jack's story is very much about him becoming the overman.

Oh and I just realized this, Jack and Sally get together at the end, which is the Overman and Instinct becoming one.

I’ve read a lot of misunderstanding of the Ubermensch idea here, so offering my take on the key qualities as described in Thus Spoke Zarathustra:

1. Universal affirmation of the world. An Ubermensch thinks everything in the world, and everything that has ever occurred in the past, is perfect. Including all tragedies, pain, and their own will frustration.

2. The Great Redeemer. The will to power looks forward to make the future match the will, but when the world does not follow the will, an Ubermensch changes their will so that it matches whatever happened (maintaining universal affirmation). This perfect control of the will makes an Ubermensch immune to fate since nothing can happen that would be against their will.

3. Child like state. The last stage of the metamorphosis is a clue to what it feels like to be an Ubermensch. Everything in the world, including pain, is a novel toy to play with. Forgetting past attachments and treating life like a game. This universal appetite for everything contrasts with the comparatively shallow values of hedonists.

In a nutshell, the Ubermensch is an imagined super human who has such perfect control of their mind that they can value anything they want, and they use this power to maximally extract value from everything that happens. It’s a downstream consequence of abandoning the idea of objective value and reasoning through what the pinnacle of deciding your own values would be, free from all external influence. It doesn’t require any physical domination or world achievements, as it’s purely about the mind, and could in theory be emulated by a disabled person or a child.

Would love for Any nietzsche readers or those interested to check this out!

I gain laughter.

I just wanted to let all the smarty pants philosophers in this sub know that I’ve made leaps in bounds when it comes to my reading of Nietzsche, thanks to this community.

I used to really get tripped up trying to spell his name. Would usually spell it like Nietsche or worse Nietzche and then let auto correct find that missing eZ for me. A few days of arguing with the scholars here has made me realize that the “Ch” part of his name is where that hard ZS goes. NietZSche. Like that.

I can feel the self-improvement washing over my body as I type this. I haven’t read Nietzsche yet but I hear that he speaks of this. I just finished How To Win Friends And Influence People, but I wanted something more edgy in the self help genre, so now I’m starting Beyond Good and Evil. Maybe the libs would understand a thing or two if they read that one am I right?

Quote source:

Errata corrige - Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, from the Dance Song - not the Nigth Song.

I suppose I do understand how they might see their traditionalist values as social constructs necessary for the preservation and flourishing of life, but doesn't seeing life is primarily biological seem like a very surface level reading of Nietzsche? I think this passage is reflected in a much richer way in Deleuze's definition of philosophy as the construction of new concepts, and in his ontology as the return and differentiation of active forces. Post-structuralist theory and, to a degree, critical theory, is the legacy of Nietzsche, which makes this century a Nietzschean century. BAP is the legacy of Elisabeth Förster.

I never read Nietzsche btw

This is probably some sort of Easter egg, since they're a few pages apart, but who knows.

Capital, Vol. 1 (Princeton UP, 2024; trans. Paul Reitter, ed. Paul North and Paul Reitter), Editor's Introduction, pp. lix and lxii.

Many people have become disillusioned for one reason or another with this sub. u/fleur_de_lit and many such fellow travelers have vocalized something off, something Christian, something dogmatic about this ought-to-be spirited place.

So, another one looms, free for those of serious mind and body to view and pass through.

Let me stress this sub has been incredible, and many immeasurable conversations have blossomed into new worlds and understandings. However, it is time to shed our skin and, in so doing, give homage to the size we were.

Cheers.

Hello, I am searching for a specific passage or quote from Nietzsche where he says something like:

(Paraphrase)

“And how lucky we are provided that we know how to keep quiet/keep our ideas hidden (or something like that)”

Sorry, I know this is vague. I appreciate any response

Thus Spoke Zarathustra was the first book I read to my daughters when they just needed to hear a calm, safe voice while falling asleep. My first grandchild is arriving in a few weeks, and so I took the first part of Zarathustra (Prologue, first and last speech of the first part and a few in between), chopped it down to child-sized bites (apologies for the violence in this reduction) and set it to a picture book story. I made the book on shutterfly. The link is here if any are interested: Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None... and Babies

Since Nietzsche in Genealogy of Morals defined resentment as only an emotion created by Slaves to exert their will to power by inverting Master Morality of Weak Vs Strong into Good Vs Evil after Socrates's death. What was the psyche of these classes before that? Did they love their fate? Did they believe their lives were equally worth living despite the hierarchy and exploitation of them and their weakness towards it as something very natural?

I just had this thought pass my mind yesterday, it is on how paradoxical or ironic Nietzsche’s view on conformism. In the first hand, he critiques conformity, which is greatly seen in his treatment of morality and of course his famous critique of herd morality. While on the other, he despises Socrates for introducing dialectics, which is supposed to be a method that challenges existing norms or ideas. Well, I had to share my thoughts here in hope of an answer that will support or argue against my statement. If there is something I missed in Nietzsche’s ideas, I hope to get it pointed out.

I have been developing a system which claims to answer a why and how to life. I post this on nietzsche because will to power helped put this concept into words, and i believe it is similarly framed, therefore followers of nietzsche will possibly be able to relate to this concept or understand it. My reasoning for this post is because i want to see how other view this concept since i would like to see how well i understand it myself so i want to see if the perception is similar, from my understanding in comparison to others. I am also looking for possible help in the full development of this concept, if it one worth studying, which i believe it is. Without further a do here it is. Rough draft of the general idea without bombarding information.

This is a system having to do with the stimulation of the human, one that was found, not created, discovered, realized. Unconsciously aware in individuals not to its full extent, which is contradictory to its purpose. I call it an animalistic religion, though i pose this concept as something that is beyond religion, even contradictory to it having clashing foundation in its groundwork but there is no other word for it, maybe a spiritual animal would be a name making more sense. Animalistic because although not 1:1 to what animals do, it can act as an analogy to them. A can swim for survival but beyond survival there is something that stimulates the fish even more so, this is an extension of its body. A bird flies, a lion roars because it can, and because it can, it should do so for the sake of it, because the extension of its body is stimulating to it.

The animalistic religion is what is innately born from human, for human stimulating the need for the extension of its body, a childish love for the excretion of acts of service for the body and mind. These acts of service hold a criteria which i have not fully thought about alot, some ideas for concepts that fullfill these criteria are:

Emotional excretion, acting as a channel for the output of love, honest, personal, in relation to the specialness of the individual, having to do with the reasoning for a love for the arts, having to do with the reason for a stimulating feeling in socializing, socializing in and of itself, having to do with the growth that exists in learning, having to do with the things the individual is interested in learning, bonding, in relation to other humans and in relation to building and growing something, having to do with health, it is biological, it is evolutionary, it can be humorous to no avail, it is rewarding to the body, it is related to the expressional output of the specialness of the individual .

Some ideas that contradict its own fullfillness are:

It can be devolutional, it is no to regard caring towards the body, it tricks biology, it can be clever, it can be cunning, it is unfullfilling, it does not necessarily have to relate to the individual personally, it not in service to the body (and mind), it is or can be unhealthy, it artifically stimulates, it falsifies rewarding the body.

Things to note in this criteria:

An act can be the same on in different individuals and it can hold a different criteria, which in turn changes the service it is acting on in the body. The reasoning in whether an act will act in favor of holding a service to the body will be innately from the individual out of its love for extension. Not necessarily having to be aware of its love for extension.

Criteria aside the individual aware of its love for extension must view these acts with a childish wonder, in awe for what they do to the body, in awe for the service and fullness they provide. This childish and innocent view towards the general idea of it all can only result in an obvious praise. An aggressive and compulsory praise to the realization of these ideals, it can be the only thing that makes sense. This is a new avenue of thought beyond religion and in its core possibly replacing spirutality.

If this concept is applied and followed it will lead future generations for a new type of human, similar in the ubermensch in its concept. A man that acts on his own center, what surrounds it, and what is not, for the sake of it, creating a fully diverse ecosystem of individuals acting on their individual acts of service, stunned by their own, and other individuals hierearchical system of acts that they hold. A society without prejudice or possible superiority complexes over others in acts. A generation for the expression of free thinkers in awe of each others free thinking, interested in everything and everyone.

This concept can only be described in the eyes of a human as attractively charismatic and obviously followed for what it is. Althought attractively charismatic from within, and when i say followed, i mean going from, unpraised to praised. The most celebrated part of the human.

This is the general idea of what i mean when i refer to an animalistic religion, the most fundamental part of what a human is, because it is for humans from humans, for animal from animals, it seems that the alienation and separation of animal and man is what has caused this separation of the fundamental animal reason. The line between animal, human and god, is one that exists on the same plane, on the same axis, at the same time.

So im low iq. Obviously in schopenhauer and nietzsche’s writing a great deal of emphasis is given to the intellect, atleast in what i just read called wisdom of life. So should I end it all given this because I will basically always be relegated to completely insurmountable suffering. Thx guys and remember to be brutally dismissive and honest to me in the comments. Also yea this is mostly a schopenhauer question but i like you guys better so im here