Essay on the possibility of an extraordinary man, an "übermensh", and an inquiry into theories by Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky, and the effects and consequences, including a psychology-philosophical depiction of the motives and misunderstandings of Caesar, Napoleon, and Hitler.
In Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky writes: "...all men are divided into 'ordinary' and 'extraordinary.' Ordinary men have to live in submission, have no right to transgress the law, because, don't you see, they are ordinary. But extraordinary men have a right to commit any crime and transgress the law in any way, just because they are extraordinary.'' [1]
Friedrich Nietzsche famously studied the topic of a Higher Being, an over-human, an "übermensh", in his philosophical writings in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Nietzsche's übermensh is perhaps the most misunderstood philosophical idea ever presented, shown in the falsity of honor and righteousness presented in leaders such as Julius Caesar, Napoleon, and Adolf Hitler. A blunder! A farce! A fallacy!
Religion and God have been thought of as a form of higher transcendental Being for the longevity of humanity's existence.
To understand what is meant by a Higher Being, the differences and relation of transcendence and Being, we must first understand the history of human belief in something extraordinary, something out of this world, something superstitious or divine, or perhaps something truly Higher. Going back to the roots of human Thought, we may arrive at a crossroads. What constitutes a belief in something Higher? And what, then, is a Higher Being? For the simplicity and clarity of this inquiry, let us adhere to the definition of Higher Being being something higher being than the human itself, the Dasein (as Heideggerian would point out). It is a belief that something exists beyond the human conscious, beyond you-yourself and you-Dasein. It is thus something transcendental. Important to note that the definition of transcendental, follows the phenomenologist in usage in this essay. Alternatively, a reflection of something beyond one's knowledge can be expressed as transcendent in Kantian terminology.
Evidence suggests that humans have shown religious behavior 45-200 thousand years ago. Evolutionary archaeology, as well as the study of the anthropology of religion, mythology, the origin of language, and both evolutionary and behavioral psychology, we have understood that humans have believed in something even in prehistoric periods.[2] Basically, rituals and symbolism have always been part of Mankind's Being and understanding, even from prehistoric periods and among earlier versions of the modern-day human, homo sapiens. It is an entirely different question when the first religions were formed or created, albeit research has shown the possibility of religion existing during the Neolithic era. Of course, this essay's primary motive is in no way that of understanding the origin of religion, but rather the origin of the Thought or Belief in a Higher Being.
Reflecting back on the quote from Crime and Punishment (1866), a presentation of context is in order. The protagonist, Raskolnikov "Rodya" Rodion Romanovich, argues and presents his theory on crime in Part III, Chapter 5, to Porfiry Petrovich, chief investigator and a worthy intellectual opponent. The theory is based on an article Raskolnikov wrote in which he ensures the possibility that certain, so-called "extraordinary" individuals are allowed to commit whatever crime as if they were above the law. A further question posed in Crime and Punishment is what Raskolnikov considers himself to be. Porfiry asks: “Well, you see… I really don’t know how to express it properly…. It’s a playful, psychological idea…. When you were writing your article, surely you couldn’t have helped, he-he! fancying yourself… just a little, an ‘extraordinary’ man, uttering a new word in your sense…. That’s so, isn’t it?”[3] But Raskolnikov quickly snubs off the idea that he would consider himself an "extraordinary man". But that certainly brings us close to the land of contradiction. To think radically, to present something extraordinary, does it not seem that it requires one to be radical or extraordinary; to possess those qualities and not just imitate them...?
A strong and perfect ideal human being. Theorized by Nietzsche. Applied and experimented with the Nazi's "master race."
The other day while reading Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, I was profoundly confused about how the Nazis could have successfully presented a misinterpretation of Nietzsche. The German philosopher goes on for almost an entire chapter on why Europeans and Germans must be grateful for the Jews and their influence on the development of European and German culture and even presents the possibility of punishment for anti-Semitism sentiment.[4] Then again, Nietzsche's poetical and "difficult to read" style, is probably best understood by his quote: "Every deep thinker is more afraid of being understood than of being misunderstood.”[5]
Of course, it would be stupid to blame Nietzsche for ignorance on account of being misunderstood. How could he have predicted Nazi Germany's rise to power and perverse misinterpretation of übermensh? The ideal human by Nietzsche focused on being strong, not merely physically, but rather, spiritually in being conscious of one's Will to Power and in being existentially and individualistically in Being oneself. - On the contrary, it was falsely interpreted by Nazis to fit (not merely vulgar) the concept of the "Aryan master race", Herrenrasse - strong, blonde, and blue-eyed. Consequently, this led to a slur of racial ideology and the extermination of millions of Jews, handicapped, Slavs, Poles, homosexuals, and other humans deemed impaired - all to create Lebensraum for the German people.
A question arises from the ashes of the Roman Empire, Napoleonic Wars, and the World Wars: who is an extraordinary man? (Let it be said that "Man" refers to Mankind or rather any being, and is not definitive in the expression of a particular gender, albeit the key figures of the aforementioned events and times are of the gender of Man.)
Marcus Aurelius, the Roman Emperor, and Stoic philosopher, was by all accounts a brilliant leader and unmatched intellectually in his epoch. Julius Caesar was a born leader, commander of an admirable army, and a profound reformist. Napoleon and Hitler were both inspiring commanders and righteously selfish. But what would make these historical people, often named among the greatest (individual) humans who have graced Earth (apart from Hitler) be "extraordinary"? Marcus Aurelius failed in the bliss of ignorance by selecting his egoistic son as the successor, thus ending Pax Romana; Caesar failed to impress although being the born leader and by conspiracy tasted treacherous blades twenty-three times; Napoleon was a brilliant leader, moral to his troops, organizer and creative warfare specialist, and brilliant at concentrating his troops at single targets, played himself by stacking his cards against himself; Hitler, empowered by anger and revenge, successful partly because of Will, none the less the Will of the German people, brilliant German military commanders, luck and the Allies' ignorant pre-war appeasement politics, and failed in the Will not to see "failure" and "losing". Let me ask then again: What makes somebody extraordinary? How is it decided who gets to break the law, as explained by Raskolnikov in Dostoyevsky's masterpiece?
Every day Superhuman Being: The Imagination of the Human Mind. Wondrous!
Nietzsche presents not only a theory on the possibility of a Higher Being, an übermensh but also a concept called "will to power" which is accompanied by the belief of amor fati; we humans love fate according to Nietzsche. As with other theories and extraordinary Thoughts, (you see I used it), that Nietzsche presented, the aforementioned are also largely left for the reader to attempt to comprehend and interpret the meaning, mainly due to Nietzsche's failure to conceptualize or finish the theories. But hey, who does not enjoy reading Nietzschean poetry and trying over and over to decipher it?
In a sense, Nietzsche can be understood to have meant that the existential and aware individual of amor fati and Will to Power can commit to Being a Higher Being, in relation to oneself. To be transcendence to oneself. Thus, it would follow the definition of transcendence by Jean-Paul Sartre to be something that is outside oneself, mainly the objective object-material world and other subjective beings. Therefore, the extraordinary one is oneself, and rather than the Higher Being and transcendence being synonymous with one another, transcendence is everything beyond and concerning oneself; meanwhile, the Higher Being is oneself, (but only if one is aware, a Dasein being).
Can anyone be a truly extraordinary Being...that is the Impossible Assumption.
Whatever the Truth may be, one thing is for certain: the path is always yours; you just have to see it that way. Thus, you may reign supreme as a subjective being, and only you may declare yourself as the Higher Being - or as Nietzsche thought it, the goal of humanity for our meaningless life. Perhaps then you have something meaningful to aim for...
O.K
Footnotes.
https://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/182/crime-and-punishment/3410/part-3-chapter-5/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions
https://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/182/crime-and-punishment/3410/part-3-chapter-5/
Further reading: https://newramblerreview.com/book-reviews/philosophy/nietzsche-s-hatred-of-jew-hatred
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/82820-every-deep-thinker-is-more-afraid-of-being-understood-than
Comments