[spodi]

I was browsing the philosophy forum and its pretty dead so I figured I'd post in the history buff's forum. Alright, for those familiar with Nietzsche's ubermensch, who are actual historical examples besides that guy from the 1930s.

[Thunderhawk]

Julius Caesar and Augustus.

Perhaps also..
Napoleon Bonaparte
Richard the lion heart

[fuser]

Genghis Khan

/thread

Ubermensch and Untermensch battling it out :

[youtube]WA4tLCGcTG4[/youtube]

[Rei Murasame]

Cecil John Rhodes.

The world is nearly all parcelled out, and what there is left of it is being divided up, conquered and colonised. To think of these stars that you see overhead at night, these vast worlds which we can never reach. I would annex the planets if I could; I often think of that. It makes me sad to see them so clear and yet so far.

The end, fullstop.

[OllytheBrit]

Cecil John Rhodes.

The end, fullstop.

Rei? Is that you?? I've never seen you post less than 5000 words.

[Rei Murasame]

Well, when it comes to Rhodes, there are no words that can explain it, on this issue it doesn't even need explanation. I'd just give you this quote:

Africa has been called cruel, perhaps rightly. She sets a high standard and has no use for weaklings. Those men who made names for themselves in Africa -- there have been very few; indeed it has been the grave of many reputations -- were all immensely above the average in intellect, in breadth of view and character. Towering above all others of this, our Western, civilisation, comes Rhodes, the greatest Empire builder we have known; one worthy to be ranked with Alexander and Caesar.

In common with every strong man, Rhodes had enemies in plenty; but the bitterest of them all would have echoed the words of the ex-German Kaiser who, after a conversation with Rhodes, said, "There goes a man."

Civilisation in South Africa, where Rhodes's Imperial work was accomplished -- though his dreams had vaster boundaries -- had insignificant beginnings, but it is now advancing from all points of the compass towards a future that no man can foresee.

Sitting at the camp fire one night in the Matopo Hills in 1896 Lady Grey, who had come out from Bulawayo to visit our camp asked, "In what is your strongest belief, Mr Rhodes?"

"In power", he replied.

"There is the power of religion, the power of the sword, the power of philosophy, the power that drives one. What is it? If I am to believe in myself, and I do, I must have in my being the power to enable me to carry through my object. But what is the end of power? So often, desert sand or ruins. But there is a force, a power and a vitality that drives one on, and one cannot evade it if one would."

There is nothing I can say, generally, because Cecil Rhodes is an example of 'an ideal human being', from my perspective. He is close to perfect.

[unbalanced zealot]

I thought you would have nominated Miyamoto Musashi.

[Rei Murasame]

I thought you would have nominated Miyamoto Musashi.

He is of course nominated by default. I would have named even more, but the thread didn't gather momentum.

[blackjack21]

Additionally,
Alexander the Great
Octavian
Trajan
Marcus Aurelius
Peter the Great
Ivan III

[quetzalcoatl]

A thought experiment.

You have access to a machine that allows you to access the past, make a specific change, and view the result as a branching timeline. As a controlled experiment you decide to choose specific "great men" to strangle at birth. Julius Caesar, for example, or whoever suits your fancy.

What would the cognate world you create be like? Excluding obvious minor differences of personalities, what would be the change in the general tenor of life?

I hypothesize that the great arc of history would be unchanged. It is forces that shape our world more than personalities; the longer your time perspective, the more character effects recede and forces loom large. We are persons, therefore we have a built-in cognitive bias in favor of personalities. We build a story, a narrative or history that enables us to understand our world; these narratives are built on characters, because a narrative built on impersonal forces would be boring.

Great men are at their core interchangeable. Biology constantly throws them up, like sperm. Most of the time they go to waste, because history has no place for them. US Grant is a perfect example; he was a failure in every aspect of life until an accident of history put him at the right place at the right time.

[Saeko]

A thought experiment.

You have access to a machine that allows you to access the past, make a specific change, and view the result as a branching timeline. As a controlled experiment you decide to choose specific "great men" to strangle at birth. Julius Caesar, for example, or whoever suits your fancy.

What would the cognate world you create be like? Excluding obvious minor differences of personalities, what would be the change in the general tenor of life?

I hypothesize that the great arc of history would be unchanged. It is forces that shape our world more than personalities; the longer your time perspective, the more character effects recede and forces loom large. We are persons, therefore we have a built-in cognitive bias in favor of personalities. We build a story, a narrative or history that enables us to understand our world; these narratives are built on characters, because a narrative built on impersonal forces would be boring.

Great men are at their core interchangeable. Biology constantly throws them up, like sperm. Most of the time they go to waste, because history has no place for them. US Grant is a perfect example; he was a failure in every aspect of life until an accident of history put him at the right place at the right time.

I disagree with your hypothesis, but partly agree with your argument. I believe that a history without Julius Caesar would be radically different from our own. While it is true that impersonal forces shape the arc of history to a degree that we have a tendency to underestimate, it is also true that sometimes a single person or a small group of people can be placed into a position where they have a lot of leverage to decide the course of history.

[quetzalcoatl]

I disagree with your hypothesis, but partly agree with your argument. I believe that a history without Julius Caesar would be radically different from our own. While it is true that impersonal forces shape the arc of history to a degree that we have a tendency to underestimate, it is also true that sometimes a single person or a small group of people can be placed into a position where they have a lot of leverage to decide the course of history.

Fair enough, but you may be slightly misunderstanding my argument. I believe history chooses the great man from an available pool of candidates. If it had not been Julius Caesar, it would have been another like him. It is not the rare qualities of Caesar (or Rhodes, Peter the Great, Alexander, et al) that are important - it is the qualities they share in common with others of a similar profile. These people are always around, but only occasionally does the train slow enough for one of them to hop on board.

[annatar1914]

Jesus of Nazareth.

[Dagoth Ur]

Karl Marx and Muhammad. They've conquered more of the world in words alone than any of the above (excluding Jesus of course).

[ThirdTerm]

[youtube]77AU_C4JH_8[/youtube]

Oda Nobunaga is thought to be the greatest warlord of the Warring States period and he just stopped short of uniting medieval Japan because he was assassinated by his trusted aide and it was his subordinates who finished the job and founded the Tokugawa shogunate which ruled the country over two centuries. Nobunaga was a charismatic military leader who first introduced the use of guns in the 16th century, which gave him a strategic advantage to subjugate other warlords of his era. The Oda clan still exists today and Olympic figure skater Nobunari Oda directly descended from Oda Nobunaga.

[youtube]h5GA1zEIpLc[/youtube]

The Battle of Okehazama put Oda Nobunaga on the world stage forever changed Japanese history. His victory over Imagawa Yoshimoto against impossible odds were more staggering. Being outnumbered almost twelve to one Nobunaga had no choice but to launch a surprise attack against the mighty Imagawa army. His use of human intelligence at the Battle of Okehazama changed warfare from the age of military exploitation to the age of information. The long and bloodly unification of Japan began when Oda Nobunaga defeated Imagawa Yoshimoto at the Battle of Okehazama on May 19th, 1560.
http://www.amazon.com/Oda-Nobunaga-The- ... 0979039746

[unbalanced zealot]

Obviously, Ronald Reagan ... and Kim Il-Sung of course.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Julius Caesar and Augustus.

Perhaps also..
Napoleon Bonaparte
Richard the lion heart

What was 'ubermensch' about Richard the Lionheart? Rebelled twice, both times unsuccessfully, against his father (but only with relatives' help - including his mother - how embarrassing is it that you need your mother to try rebel, and you don't succeed even then?). Went off on a crusade, in which he had to negotiate a peace treaty to end it, rather than winning outright; got captured and had to be ransomed on the way back; and then had to spend time putting down rebellions - during one of which he was killed by a common archer. He died of gangrene.

He's nowhere near the most ubermenschy of the English kings, let alone the world.

[annatar1914]

Abraham Lincoln

[unbalanced zealot]

Maybe Albert Einstein ... and Newton also transcended established thought patterns in science but was a bit weird.

[Rei Murasame]

Peter the Great

Peter the Great

Abraham Lincoln

Maybe Albert Einstein

You are all trolling, right?

Jesus of Nazareth.

That is an epic troll move!

Jesus of Nazareth is not an overman, by definition. "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth"? Really?