[AnimalMuppet]

No, they wanted low IQ individuals who would believe that rot about being the master race, and do what they were told.

But the problem isn't just with the Nazis. The problem is with Nietzsche. The Ubermensch is superior to other humans, and can re-define morality as he (or she) sees fit. That will almost always work out badly for the other humans...

[jkyle]

> The problem is with Nietzsche. The Ubermensch is superior to other humans, and can re-define morality as he (or she) sees fit.

I'm not sure that's an accurate interpretation of Nietzsche use of the word. Yes, Nietzsche advocated defining our own values. However, this is contrasted with an alternative of allowing others to define values for us.

He felt rationality leads to values which benefit humanity as a whole. Again contrasted with Christian values which are ostensibly focused on benefiting man after death rather than in life and in practice benefit the few while victimizing the herd that follows those values thoughtlessly.

He advocated living an intensely human existence (übermensch) rather than a mindless, animal existence. And through that rising above a fixation on death ("going under") and shifting to a fixation on life ("rising over" or über). By doing so, we lead authentic lives that allow us to project our unique and individual contributions into the human experience to the benefit of all man kind.

For a practical example, think of Shakespeare, Socrates, Plato, Marie Curie, or Martin Luther King. They fought against group think, forged their own path, and projected themselves so forcefully that their ideas and creations dominate our discourse even today. And most would argue for the betterment of humanity. And they did so by being intensely authentic human beings.

He would not and, in fact, did not advocate any sense of the word as being literally superior to other human beings. He was horrified by Nazism, denounced National Socialism, and cursed anti-semitism.

Becoming übermensch is a state of being attainable by every man and woman equally. And while it is a more authentic state of being, it was not remotely indicative of a social caste or order. I think Nietzsche would say every great moral or intellectual advancement mankind has had stemmed from men and women who defined their own values, pursued them intensely, and projected those values into society.

[AnimalMuppet]

But if everybody's defining their own values, then a bunch of people are going to define their values very selfishly. That's (unfortunately) human nature. One could argue that Ashley Madison (to use a current example) with their slogan "Life is short, have an affair" is living this just as much as Martin Luther King. Once you remove morality, then you have nothing to give any positive direction to your values, because you have no basis for defining what "positive" means, other than your own feelings and thoughts.

> He felt rationality leads to values which benefit humanity as a whole.

Other philosophers would disagree. de Sade, for example. (Yes, he was a philosopher, and his writings and actions were an expression of his philosophy.) And even human history seems to show that Nietzsche was overly optimistic on human nature on this point.

In "The Abolition of Man", C. S. Lewis argues that rationality, by itself, can never give real values. That can only come from "practical reason", not mere reason, because it has to tie reason to values and emotions. (I'm not stating it well - go read Lewis. It's really short, only a hundred pages or so, and very readable, though it does take some thought.)

[dragonwriter]

> But if everybody's defining their own values, then a bunch of people are going to define their values very selfishly.

Everyone is -- unalterably -- defining their own values, and quite often those doing so consciously are doing so quite selfishly, sure. Those doing it unconsciously are often just defining their own values by uncritically internalizing some (possibly distorted and misunderstood) set of values that someone else defined (either selfishly or not.)

> Once you remove morality, then you have nothing to give any positive direction to your values, because you have no basis for defining what "positive" means, other than your own feelings and thoughts.

Arguably, "morality" is just a label for your own feelings and thoughts about what is positive and negative, and recognizing that is the first step in thinking about morality on something beyond a cargo cult level.

[AnimalMuppet]

> Arguably, "morality" is just a label for your own feelings and thoughts about what is positive and negative, and recognizing that is the first step in thinking about morality on something beyond a cargo cult level.

No, that's not morality, at least not the feelings part - more like the opposite, in fact. Morality is what I believe is right or wrong, especially when it goes against my feelings.

[jkyle]

> But if everybody's defining their own values, then a bunch of people are going to define their values very selfishly.

There are only two options: define morality for yourself, and own it completely, or allow someone else to define it for you.

Morality is a construct that stems solely from man. What Nietzsche condemns is accepting the morality of others like sheep instead of critically. You cannot own a moral construct until you have fully evaluated that construct and accepted its consequences yourself.

Further, he claimed that a morality based on what happens after you die is bereft of any real meaning. He advocated a morality rooted in the human condition and defined by its relation to humanity, not its relation to dead gods as defined by moral potentates.

[danieltillett]

I can’t say I am enough of an expert on Nazi theology to know what they wanted other than to say whatever it was it was not very rational nor based on an understanding of genetics.