u/PersimmonExciting105

In the context of culture and evolution, the idea of the Ubermensch is pretty pointless. I’m sure it was a profound idea when Nietzsche came up with it, but man does it ever get more credit than it deserves in this forum.

Every value system in human history had to be created by human beings. Period. Cultures have always created values, destroyed them, redesigned them, and replaced them with new ones. All we’ve ever vet had are temporary values.

Humanity itself is no exception. Like every other living thing, we are always stuck in a moment suspended between what came before and whatever comes after.

This process does not culminate in perfection. It continues until extinction. There is no final human type, no ultimate set of values, no endpoint toward which evolution moves.

In response to Nietzsches ideas about the herd, where to even start. He misunderstood herd mentality because he treated it primarily as weakness, conformity, or mediocrity, rather than as one of the central mechanisms of human survival.

Human beings have survived as intensely social animals capable of coordination and shared norms. What Nietzsche dismissed as “herd morality” was often the cultural glue that allowed large groups to cooperate, share knowledge, and ultimately survive. To add to this, it allowed us to reduce internal violence. We wouldn’t be here today without our “herd mentality”.

Was thinking about the infill debate and I wonder about the long term repercussions of NOT allowing these multi unit infills in all neighborhoods.

Wouldn’t this lead to a long term wealth segregation where you’re isolated from people from a different socio-economic background?

The fact is you likely need money from parents to buy into some of these neighborhoods. Why wouldn’t you want to live next to and interact with a single teacher for example, who probably makes about $80k a year and that’s what they can afford. I know that’s an idealized example. It just seems short sighted to want to build a community and society to be intentionally segregated.

I think every community should have a mix of all forms of housing, from condos to townhouses to single family homes. No community should be exempt.

Read this book last year, Hierarchy in the Forest by Christopher Boehm, that is a very good counter to a lot of Nietzsches main points. Anyone read it?

Nietzsche had this idea of the exceptional individual rising above the herd, but I think it’s purely fantasy. It was cooperation and group survival that’s the secret to our species success. This benefits not only the individual, but the group as a whole.

A good example of this is when we find Stone Age fossils of people born with disabilities, who likely would have nothing to contribute to the group, but the group kept them alive to an old age and natural death.

In the book he argues that empathy and other moral emotions (shame, guilt, etc.) are not just cultural inventions, but evolved social traits tied to survival.

So if anyone has read it, curious your opinion on how this refutes a lot of what Nietzsche thoughts. Similarly,

Secondary discussion point here, I’m curious the relationship between Nietzsche and Darwin. He definitely was aware of Darwin and read him. Again, directly refutes this idea of a Will to Power. Nietzsche directly attacked a lot of people by name, but not Darwin - was he perhaps intimidated by him? On a large scale, outside of just philosophy, clearly Darwin has had a significantly larger influence on our species - and it’s not even close.

Was out yesterday cruising around the city on my bike and was able to go almost 40km strictly using bike paths, it was incredible and a great day.

I found it interesting though as there was also oodles of skateboarders, rollerbladers, scooters, recumbent bikes, and a guy on whatever you call the one tire balance thing using the lanes. Maybe we should call them Alternate Transportation Lanes so cyclists don’t take all the heat?

With all the alternate forms of transportation available now, there has to be a way like this to separate them from vehicles and people walking - maybe we should rename them as such to dial back the heat.

Would Nietzsche not have wanted us to reject his values instead of idolizing him? I’m always curious about this when I speak to people who are heavily influenced by Nietzsche and defend HIS values as if they are their own. I feel like he wanted us to poke holes in everything, so that it may guide us towards discovering and creating OUR values. People read and quote him like they read and quote the bible, and I think that would have repulsed him.

What do you think Nietzsche’s opinion would be of Charles Bukowski? They have completely opposing value systems, but I feel like Nietzsche would have loved that Bukowski created his own set of values, and could defend them if challenged.