Was Fredrick Nietzsche an aspie himself?

Post Reply New Topic

If not, could his idea of the "Superman" be a reference to the autistic spectrum in any form shape or way?

Even if his "Superman" idea may not be connected that still begs the question:

Are those who belong in the autistic spectrum, especially those with Asperger's, more likely to become the "Superman" that Nietzsche describes?

For those od you who don't know about Nietzche and his philosophy, here's some videos to help you understand:

Here's the one explaining Nietzsche:



Here's the one explaining Nietzsche's Superman ideal:

Wow, a Nietzsche thread. So much love his work.
I don't know if his ideal is that ideal. The overman is a pure individual person, who has lack of extern authority or moral, sounds like such a person is on the spectrum.
Then there's the question: are people happy to have such a "free spirit"? It makes it difficult to adapt to society, start relations etc etc Somtimes pretty damn hard. Nietzsche's own life of non-conformity must have also been hard, from what we know about it

But on other moments I just don't want to conform, detest religion, detest society with all its restrictions and demands to conform, people's pathetic feel good beliefs about themselves, their so called honesty and integrity. Nietzsche is really good in attacking those people.
I wish Nietzsche was here to attack those present day slave moralists, I mean islam, invading the west. And the terrible political corectness of our present day Europe leaders. Damn, wish he was here.

One interpretation ...

The "Superman" is the ultimate egoist, always putting his/her self-interest before the interests of others.

As Ayn Rand famously said, selfishness is a virtue.

"the Randian hero is really Nietzsche's superman in the guise of the entrepreneur".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randian_hero

A very hard thing to do, even if you wanted to.

The fictional "Sith" in Star Wars have a code that says when you achieve ultimate egoism, then your chains are broken. You're free. You're free from the harmful social conditioning that fooled you into believing that you aren't the most important thing, always.

Once you realize that you are the most important thing always, then why would you *ever* sacrifice your self for others? [rhetorical].

That's what it takes to become Nietzsche's "Superman".

"Darth Nietzsche of the Sith"? That seems a little redundant.

That part about F.Nietzsche being autistic is irrelevant speculation. It is known, however, that he spent the last decades of his life in the grips of some form of dementia (possibly caused by syphilis), and was addicted to opium.

In 1893, F.Nietzsche's sister Elisabeth (recently widowed) read and studied Nietzsche's works and, piece by piece, took control of them and their publication, effectively stealing F.Nietzsche's identity and profiting from his reputation.

So what you think you know of F.Nietzsche's works and philosophies may actually be those of his sister.

Question 1: Was Nietzshe himself an aspie?

Answer: insufficient data.


Question 2:Does becoming an Nietzshian "superman" mean joining the autism spectrum?

Answer: Huh? You must be joking.


A textbook Nietzshian Superman would be a rapper who makes albums with titles like "Get Rich, or Die Trying". Nothing either autistic, nor particularly NT, about it.

Back to the original question ...

Many here accept Darwinism happens from an evolutionary standpoint, yet, they reject it as a morality.

So, per Nietzsche, they're in conflict with themselves and that makes them suffer.

Per Nietzsche, the lies of "good/evil/right/wrong/sin/morality" were invented to confuse people -- to make them choose against their own will.

As Nietzsche says, " ... all these things deserve to perish".

To be "Superman" you must perish this internal conflict created by others, and realize your will is supreme.

I don't think many here are capable of that.

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 14 May 2016, 2:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

... Just as we reject gravity, thermodynamics and photosynthesis as a morality.

don't know who suffers most: the ones that are in love of their own virtue or people of free spirit

I believe evolution happens, but I don't prescribe to Darwin's and certainly not Herbert Spencer's theories on how the process actually plays out. We can see change in creatures over time, but making inferences about why they happen will always be tainted by human experience (namely relate the natural world to things we're doing in civilization to show how correct civilization is). That's where morality with evolution comes in: Darwin claims "natural selection" whereas civilization is not a natural entity, so any changes we make in society based on the concept of "Darwinism" are at the core false, because we're not doing so naturally but artificially. Being the game master is in no way the same as actually being a player in the game-- knowledge of how it works in it's own right makes action on it artificial.

As for Nietzsche being autistic, he certainly has traits that align with the condition. I remember reading a passage from Richard Wagner's autobiography where he mentions Nietzsche's stay at Wagner's house. Wagner stated Nietzsche rarely engaged in conversation with other people aside from Wagner himself (including Wagner's wife Cosima), and that Nietzsche preferred reading indoors as opposed to activities outside. He would also spend several days in a row in his room without leaving. Wagner, being the A-hole he was, claimed this was due to Nietzsche's excessive masturbation. So if Wagner's right, Nietzsche was already super human in one category....

edit: grammatical.

Sure, arguments on both sides.

For example, take this event:

"Man jumps into Antioch lake to save cat, ends up drowning"
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... story.html

A. Some may say he died a "hero", a "Superman" for being so selfless
B. While Nietzsche/Rand/ Social Dawrinists would likely say he's a weak fool, who should have been selfish, and let the cat die.

The question could perhaps not be that black/white, A or B

The example reminds of Rodion Raskolnikov from Crime and Punishment. Also a figure wanting to prove his own hardness.
But at the same time rescuing little children from a fire. And pitying his act of murder.
It turnes out his hardness is only on the outside, a mask, he's sensitive on the inside.

Some suggest that this also applies for Nietzsche: his Ubermensch is his idealisation, but Nietzsche is only hard on the outside, it's only a mask, a way for overcoming his sensitiveness on the inside. Quotes from others about Nietzsche:
"The need to suppress his vulnerable interior led to an excess of hardness in his writings"
"He condemned a whole series of intense feelings not because he did not have them, but on the contrary because he had them and knew their danger"


Don't know Rand, so don't know of her characters are beyond that, and if they're also hard on the inside

Nietzsche stuck to his cold hard logic and rationality, not reducing himself to what he may have considered 'petty morals', for morals were a structure of the common man forced upon all and oppressing the free-thinker/individual.

But he was not a sociopath and was still human underneath it all. I relate to this significantly.

With that said I do not believe he had Asperger's at all even if we can relate to some of his Existentialist views.

While not a super confident smooth-talker type, he was decently social and only really secluded and isolated himself when working particulalry hard on his writings, which is what a lot of people, N.T. or aspie, tend to do when focusing heavily on work.

Then again, many historical figures who isolated themselves in such ways are considered to have aspergers now (Newton, Einstein, etc.)

But we can't pull the typical 'all great minds must have had Asperger's card', at least i'd prefer not to.

Alas, Nietzsche went insane (perhaps he had syphilis?) late in life.

What's up with this talk of him having sylhilis? Did he had sex too much? I herd women kept rejecting him often.

Perhaps he was "forced" to go with prostitutes.

Or else he had girlfriends who had syphilis.

It has not been conclusively proven that he had syphilis, though. That was the contemporary diagnosis. I have read where it was speculated that he had "frontotemporeal dementia."

I don't think the Superman concept is Aspergian, by the way.

I believe he was something of a misanthrope; I don't see autism in him, though. He seemed to be your typical 19th-century iconoclastic sort--sort of like people with Rimbaud.