There is No Equality

[CraigD]

What became of Nietzche’s superman?

 

According to Nietzche, tens of thousands of years ago, the smartest and strongest of any given group of humans naturally became their ruler.

or an Ubermensch/Superman.

Who is “smartest and stongest” – the person who can beat any other single person in a fair tournament of physical or intellectual contests, or the person who can persuade others to gang up on and beat this person in an unfair contest?

 

In deciding who rules on nearly all scales, from the elementary school playgrounds to nations, “social intelligence”, and a subtle collection of physical attributes that confer advantage in social interaction, seem far more important than physical and intellectual strength and skill. Although not entirely unique to humans among all animals, this “domination by the weak but liked” is very unusual. Nearly all of the other primates – gorillas, chimpanzees, and to a lesser extent, bonobos – lack this ability for “popular” individuals to gang-up on and prevail against physically more powerful individuals.

Consequently, the jealous masses banded together and invented religion.

I think Nietzche’s expressed ideas show that he engaged in wishful thinking, hoping that his vision of a world dominated by “superior men” would become a reality, if only people could be moved to change the objects of their adoration and worship from their deities to these men. Time appears to have proven him wrong – I’m unaware of any powerful leader today who does not profess belief in and humility before a deity or deities. The earliest histories we have describe great leaders, such as Hamarabi, as claiming that their authority is derived from deities (though some ancient leaders confused the distinction by claiming to be deities).

[Ananke]

You miss the point. The superman is not the one who has the greatest gifts, she is the one who acts without regard for social norms and conventions. In other words, she is amoral, bound by no law or preconception, free to think and act as she pleases. Thus, she is just as likely to get a gang to beat up her enemies as she is to best them in a 'fair' fight. For her, the rules of the game are a straightjacket for others, she plays a meta-game, where any means to victory are as good as any other. If you cheat and get away with it, you havent cheated. Or to put it another way, if the opportunity exists to exploit a situation, or cicumvent a law, or use another for her benefit, she takes it, without compassion, without guilt, without remorse.