Nietzsche – the Overman and the Three Metamorphoses

Salam

A good article and even better discussion, I would like to share some thoughts.

Firstly Naqshbandi sb rightly pointed out the creative dilemma of Nietzsche, that is “his heart believes while his mind doesn’t” now we understand why the man who killed God in “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” has such an ugly face, and offcourse the barren landscape of the book itself, Is it the spiritual empty space in authors mind?

Nonetheless the point raised by Khurram sb is vitally important, Nietzsche does not believe in any ethics (in the popular sense) and in doing so his superman becomes instinctive (if I term it rightly) while ours (Iqbals) Mard e Khuda is a moral being whose strength lies not in rejecting the moral values but in accepting and submitting to them

“NUQTA E PURKAR E HAQ MARD E KHUDA KA YAQEEN”

The true nature of Nietzsche’s philosophy (in essence the theory of values) can not be understood without a deeper analysis of his personality, deep in his heart there is always a desire to rule. To him the entire universe organic and inorganic express this desire – the will to power- the moral philosophy erected on the foundations of will to power is absolutely subjective and in stark contrast to objective (Greco-western ethics) and revealed morality of Islam and Christianity.

Nietzsche’s contribution to philosophy is in the domain of evolution and morals ie the creation of superman and his code of conduct. Supermen, the artist –warrior, evolving from present stock of humanity, is a small ruling Junta who create their own virtues and vice, while the rest of humanity serves their masters as cattle and farm animals, this is again in contrast to the strict demands of revealed morality where Caliph Umer bin Khitab considers himself the humble servant of the most downtrodden citizen of Medina. It is especially in his ideology of selected few and their rule over entire humanity that I find Nietzsche more close to Judaism (whom he hated most) than to Islam.

I doubt if the believer heart in Nietzsche could have won the battle had he a better understanding of Islam, we learn from his biography that Nietzsche seems to have devoted much of his time in studying all kind of philosophies and religious teachings before constructing his own philosophy, this could not skip Islam as Nietzsche being one of the most learned men of his time could not be ignorant of the contributions of Islam in the history of idea and culture. Germans as a mater of fact were in close contact with Turkey, and many of his contemporaries and predecessors Marx, Engels and Goethe showed good knowledge of Islam and Muslim societies. Nietzsche’s departure from Christianity and Western philosophy of his day is not in search of mystical appeal of a more refined religion but because of the inner call of the wild and ruthless will to power,for which any religion Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, has no place

By the way I consider Nietzsche more of an artist than a philosopher and artists may have visions (or Nighmares??)

Sidra, we hope to see more from you

Wasalam

Something different for a change!
Thanks :-)
Nietzsche is a great philsopher who predicted many of the social problems which befall us in the West today. He was a bit too overboard in his rejection of all morality as weakness though.
Recently read a mammoth biography of him by Curtis Cate:

Friedrich Nietzche

He is probably my fave Western philosopher along with Wittgenstein (who is a bit too anal to be honest!) and Aquinas and St Augustine. He, of course, was a big formative infuence on Iqbal too, who has written poems in his praise in both his Urdu and Farsi verse:

IQBAL ON NIETZSCHE:


The life and thought of Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (1844-1900) intrigued Iqbal, who, in many places in his prose and poetry, cites and discusses the German philosopher`s views. Iqbal`s interest in Nietzsche has been the subject of several studies.

We are grateful to Professor Bernd Manuel Weischer for the permission to reprint the following article, which originally appeared as a contribution in H. R. Roemer and A. North, eds., Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Vorderen Oriens. Festschrift B. Spuler (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981). Iqbal`s well-known observation about Nietzsche, namely, that his heart believes but his mind disbelieves (quoted in the beginning of this article), occurs in ``Nietzche, ``a poem in Payām-i Mashriq (in Kulliyyat-i Iqbal-Fārsī, 329), the original Persian being: qalb-i ū mu`min dimāghash kāfar ast. Here, following, is a translation of Iqbal`s Urdu note to the observation (see the Ghulam `Alī and Sons edition of Kulliyyāt-i Iqbal-Fārs-i, Lahore, 1970, p. 371).

Nietzsche subjects Christian ethical philosophy to severe criticism. His mind is a disbeliever in God since he denies God, though his ideas are, in respect of some of their implications, very close to the religion of Islam. ``His mind is a disbeliever, but his heart is a believer``-the Noble Prophet [Muḥammad]. made a similar remark about Umayyah b. Abī ṣ-Ṣalṭ (an Arab poet).- A mana lisānuhū wa-kafara qalbuhū (``His tongue believes, but his heart disbelieves``).

The word Allama, ``Great Scholar,`` which occurs before Iqbal`s name more than once in the following piece, is often used as an appellation for Iqbal.

In this reprint, the footnotes of the original article have been converted to endnotes, and one or two minor typographical errors have been corrected; otherwise, the format of the original has been retained.]

When I discussed some time ago with a leading German philosopher some aspects of Nietzsche`s philosophy and quoted to him Allama Mohammed Iqbal`s statement on Nietzsche, expressed in one of the poems in the `Payām-i mashriq`: the `Message of the East`: ``His brain is unbelieving, but his heart believing``1, he said to me: ``Never did I hear a more concise and appropriate judgment on the life and work of Nietzsche! ``-That the tragic figure of Nietzsche occupied Iqbal`s mind more than any other Western philosopher is widely known.



And as we know Iqbal planned to write a book in the style of `Thus spoke Zarathustra` under the title of `The Book of a Forgotten Prophet`, but unfortunately this plan was never carried out. A contemporary of Allama Iqbal and a religious poet like him was the Libanese Jibran Khalil Jibran who among other poems and novels wrote a book with the title `The Prophet`. He admired Nietzsche deeply, but the influence of Nietzsche`s work on him originated more from its style than from its content. Jibran Khalil Jibran, not being a philosopher, rejected the main ideas of Nietzsche and was shocked by his atheism.2 Allama Iqbal on the other hand, while also not agreeing with Nietzsche`s atheism and many of his ideas, yet, as a philosopher, poet and mystic had a much deeper insight into the personal experience as well as the philosophical system of Nietzsche, its suppositions and consequences. Thus he discovered common ideas and attitudes of mind.

If we now speak about the `Nietzsche-conception` of Allama Iqbal, it must be made clear that we cannot expect from him a dry philosophical treatise about the development of metaphysics in Europe and the decisive role Nietzsche played in it. But his often aphoristic remarks on Nietzsche in the context of very different writings are so striking, fundamental, and comprehensive-because Iqbal as an Oriental thinker did not separate the tragic life from the intellectual achievements of the German philosopher as many Western philosophers do-that we can rightly call it a `Nietzscheconception`. Iqbal was already strongly influenced by the vitalistic current of Western philosophy, by R. Eucken and especially H. Bergson, although he criticizes them sometimes. The dynamic concept of this philosophy, involving the gradual development of the self in the reality of this world,-a kind of prophetic outlook-was very close to Iqbal`s intentions in his philosophy of personality and the rediscovery of the dynamic concept of Islam. L. Massignon made the remarkable statement on the relationship of M. Iqbal with H. Bergson: ``Une affinite spirituelle semitique!``3

But Allama Iqbal drew much more support for his dynamic philosophy from Nietzsche, who in one sense can be seen as the culmination of the vitalist movement. Some thoughts, allusions, and symbols (e.g. diamond and coal) in the `Asrār-i Knudī` may be traced to Nietzsche`s `Thus spoke Zarathustra`, and the whole set of Iqbal`s book and his main idea of the `Perfect Man, which of course stems from Islamic mysticism, can be compared in a certain way with Nietzsche`s Superman. The idea of the `Superman` perhaps acted as a catalyst in the formulation of Iqbal`s ideas. The great difference between the `Perfect Man` and the `Superman` is the following: In Nietzsche`s system the exaggerated affirmation of this world and the intellectual self-realisation of the human being to the highest and most independent degree-to a quasi-divine existence-is conditioned by the negation of God, of the transcendental world, and immortality. The will to power Per Wille zur Macht) explains being as a continuous becoming or development to a higher state, the eternal recurrence Pie ewige Wiederkehr) being the existential basis of the liberty and independence of the individual in a world which becomes quasi-eternal, a kind of secularisation of eternity. Allama Iqbal, as a religious genius, immediately and intuitively realized the `punctum saliens` for the failure of Nietzsche, namely his Luciferian basis: I will not serve! This is where the great difference lies between Nietzsche and Iqbal, who had a certain sympathy with this brilliant Western thinker in his quest for the absolute. So he contrasts the Superman (Ubermensch) independent from God with the idea of the `Perfect Man` in Islamic Mysticism whom he describes in his Bāl-i Jibrīl as follows: ``The perfect man`s arm is really God`s arm, dominant, creative, resourceful, efficient, human, but angel-like in disposition, a servant with the Master`s attributes``. And in his Jāvīdnāme Iqbal describes how Nietzsche is flying between the heaven of Saturn and Paradise in eternal circles-a symbol of the eternal recurrence, which Iqbal strictly rejected-and he says about him:

``In his inebriation he broke every glass,
separated himself from God and at the same time from the Self``

and some lines further on he says about Nietzsche in an Islamic way of expression:

``He did not come from `1ā ilāh` to `i11ā ilāh` (i.e. from the negation to the affirmation of God)
and he did not know the meaning of the word `abduhu` (his servant)``4

This brilliant statement touches again on the point of difference described above.

Another time Iqbal wrote in a letter: ``Poor Nietzsche thought that his vision of the ultimate Ego could be realized in the world of space and time``.5 In the `Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam` he describes and rejects Nietzsche`s idea of the eternal recurrence in a very enlightened way, first in the lecture `The Human Ego, his freedom and immortality` and then in the lecture `Is Religion Possible?`. Rightly he points to Schopenshauer`s influence on Nietzsche in this respect, through his main work `The World as Will and Imagination`. He says 6 : ``In modern Europe Nietzsche, whose life and activity form, at least to us Easterns, an exceedingly interesting problem in religious psychology, was endowed with some sort of a constitutional equipment for such an undertaking. His mental history is not without a parallel in the history of Eastern Sufism. That a really `Imperative` Vision of the Divine in man did come to him cannot be denied. I call his vision `Imperative` because it appears to have given him a kind of prophetic mentality which, by some kind of technique, aims at turning its visions into permanent life-forces. Yet Nietzsche was a failure; and his failure was mainly due to his intellectual progenitors such as Schopenhauer, Darwin, and Lange, whose influence completely blinded him to the real significance of his vision. Instead of looking for a spiritual rule which would develop the Divine even in a plebeian and thus open up before him an infinite future, Nietzsche was driven to seek the realisation of his vision in such schemes as aristocratic radicalism. As I have said of him elsewhere:.

The `I am` which he seeketh,
lieth beyond philosophy, beyond knowledge,
The plant that groweth only from the invisible soil of the heart of man,
Groweth not from a mere heap of clay!

Thus failed a genius whose vision was solely determined by his internal forces, and remained unproductive for want of external guidance in his spiritual life``: I do not want to discuss the second text of Iqbal on Nietzsche because it would lead us to the complicated question of time problems found also in the work of H. Bergson.7

But let us come back to some aspects of Nietzsche`s philosophy which are near to Iqbal`s concept. I mean the fight of Nietzsche against Platonism and its wrong interpretation, especially in the Christian theology of the last centuries: i.e. the concept of God as a pure `causa prima` supported by philosophical terms and concepts, a concept of God which is quite the opposite of the notion of God in the prophetic religions and in the Semitic way of thinking. In this context Iqbal said in his Jāvīdnāme about Nietzsche8 :

``Had he ever lived in the times of Ahmad,
he would have entered into the eternal joy``.

That is to say: Had Nietzsche known the prophetic notion of God, as found in the Islamic tradition, he would not have failed. Thus Nietzsche in his first period was not just an atheist and nihilist who preached the complete revolution and conversion of all values, and his sentence `God is dead` is not to be understood in this simple way: it rather means that occidental metaphysics with its Greek and Platonic heritage in Nietzsche`s philosophy came to an end. He once said: ``The greatest recent event-that God has died, that the belief in the Christian God has become untrustworthy, begins to throw its first shadows over Europe``.

The leading philosopher of this century, M. Heidegger, in his profound studies on Nietzsche, his phrase `God is dead` and its role in the movement of European nihilism, has something in common with Iqbal`s intuitive remarks on Nietzsche. He says that Nietzsche remained Platonist in spite of his sarcastic fight against Platonism, because he remained on the same basis, the belief in an intellectual truth. Nietzsche himself was of course not conscious of it. The conversion of all values or the negation of known values is for Nietzsche only the starting point for the affirmation, of the `will to power`, according to him the most intrinsic essence of all beings. After giving up the belief in the divine essence as the inmost essence of all beings, Nietzsche had intellectually to fill up this emptiness.

If we now once again look at Iqbal`s statement ``His brain is unbelieving, but his heart believing``, we see how rightly it describes the case of the German philosopher. That Allama`s philosophy of personality differs basically from the system of Nietzsche is evident. In Iqbal`s concept the ultimate Ego is God himself, and the highest development of man consists in his gradual growth in self-possession and self-realisation, in the uniqueness and intensity of his activity as an ego. But the emphasis on will and activity in the higher and real ego of man and mankind in general-this dynamic concept of life and development-is very near to Nietzsche`s Superman and is a prototype of developed and perfect humanity. The difference is that Allama Iqbal develops his philosophy clearly on the ground of the Islamic faith, on the basis of the principle of the submission to the Divine, the ultimate Ego of the whole cosmos.

Notes

1 Kulliyyāt p. 371.

2 St. Wild, Friedrich Nietzsche and Gibran Kahlil Gibran, in: Abhath XXII, no. 3 & 4 (Beirut 1969) 47-57.

3 Gabriel`s Wing p. 323.

4 Kulliyyāt p. 741.

5 Gabriel`s Wing p. 324.

6 The Reconstruction p. 174f.

7 Cf. A. Bauani`s article.

8 Kulliyyāt p. 741.

Sources

J. Iqbāl (ed.), Kulliyyāt-i Iqbāl (fārsī) (Lahore-Hyderabed-Karachi 2 1975).

Muhammad Iqbal, Payām-i mashriq (translated by A. Schimmel, Botschaft des Ostens, Wiesbaden 1963).

Muhammad Iqbal, Jāvīdnāme (translated by A. Schimmel, Das Buch der Ewigkeit, Munchen 1957).

Muhammad Iqbal, Asrār-i Khudī (translated by R. A. Nicholson, The Secrets of the Self, Lahore 1969).

Muhammad Iqbal, Rumūz-i Bī-Khudī (translated by A. J. Arberry, The Mystery of Selflessness, London 1953).

Muhammad Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam (edited by J. Iqbal, Lahore 1968).

A. Bausani, ``The concept of time in the religious philosophy of Muhammad Iqbal``, in: Die Welt des Islams, N.S. 3 (1954) 158-86.

A. Schimmel, Gabriel`s Wing, A study into the religious ideas of Sir Muhammad Iqbal (Leiden 1963).

B. M. Weischer, ``Muhammad Iqbal and Western Culture``, in: Fikrun wa Fann Nr. 32, 16 (1979) 4-18-in Arabic.

Bernd Manuel Weischer
Rabat University, Morocco

[The overman for Nietzsche is the truest, most pure form of humankind. This form can be achieved by humans only when and if they liberate themselves from 1) their internal thresholds and 2) the external thresholds. Deep down inside of every human is hidden the overman. The thresholds contain the restrictions made of ‘fixed patterns’ and I find there to be interdependence between the restrictions that both thresholds contain. To put it simply, an internal (self) restriction may have to be imposed because of an external (society’s) restriction in that regard.]

A very interesting article. But how can you overcome the “internal” and “external” thresholds? The way I see it “man is a product of his society”. I’ve used the word “society” here in its broadest sense meaning the “sum of all influences and stimuli acting on his mind”. Someone very aptly said that even the loftiest of idea is merely a capstone on the pyramid built by previous generations. So when Einstein comes up with the theory of relativity or Darwin with natural selection they couldn’t have made it without reading and building upon the works of earlier scientists. Thus it is a circular kind of a process where society shapes the ideas of men and some extraordinary men in turn come up with something novel which radically (or sometimes gradually) changes the opinions and beliefs of society, society being nothing more than an assemblage of individuals.

It may not be necessary to break or overcome every “external threshold”. Traditionalism is of two kinds, deliberate and unconscious. Deliberate traditionalism is a set of traditions, customs and laws which are meditated upon and are made for the good of an individual and society. Though deliberate traditionalism may not be the right course to follow in each and every instance but as a general rule people should follow it unless in exceptional circumstances where it is proven beyond doubt that some particular set of traditions is not valid anymore in the light of new discoveries. Thus deliberate traditionalism is a general rule with certain exceptions to it. Here I must stress that all kind of laws and traditions are time bound. What we believed in past may not be valid today and what we believe today may not be valid for future. And the only criteria for making laws and norms should be “the good of an individual and the society”. By “good” I mean something which is beneficial and advantageous for individuals physically, ethically, emotionally, intellectually and socially.

[A human’s internal thresholds are the confinements of religion which are usually reinforced by teachings of morals and ethics. Belief in God, virtue and a fixed pattern of what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ in the eyes of the Supreme Power limits a human because of the fear of punishment. A human’s ‘true, actual’ self is repressed by fear. If some part of an overman emerges in a human in this regard, it is considered immoral.]

In my opinion religion serves three purposes. One, it explains the formation of Universe and creation of life. Though now we have the theory of cosmological and biological evolution but there are many flaws (or unanswered questions) in these theories. So the Creation vs. Evolution debate is still open and one is free to choose what he likes to believe, the prophets of God or the prophets of science? Two, religion provides meaning to life. It gives people “Hope”. That there is an afterlife and a person’s unique existence will continue ad infinitum.

Finally and most importantly in practical terms, it provides us a morality and ethics, a standard of right and wrong. According to the theory of “moral relativism” right and wrong are subjective terms. If you take religion out of the picture what standards do we have for judging what is right and what is wrong? The best that the ethicists have come up with is the utilitarian maxima which classifies all actions in terms of pleasure and pain. What if the pleasure of one individual is derived at the cost of pain of another individual? Who is going to be the judge?

Some utilitarian may argue that in such a case the rule of “greatest happiness for the greatest numbers” should be applied. But unless that “greatest number” includes “all” this rule is nothing more than “majoritarianism”. Secondly how are you going to convince an individual that he should care more for the good of mankind than his own individual good? A person like Neo may retort that if the purpose of life is to help others to help others to help others, it becomes an infinite loops which leads us nowhere.

Finally we may make laws and norms which guide our behavior vis-à-vis other individuals but what about our conscience? A religious person has a conscience. He knows that his God is watching not only his actions but also his thoughts and intentions. But if a person doesnot believes in God then you can govern his outward actions but you cannot govern his thoughts, intentions and inner conscience. To a certain extent even his inner conscience can be molded by imparting proper education and training in his formative years but still it is a difficult task without God watching you every step of the way :)

TahirQazi

It is nice to see your deep understanding of Philosophy. According to Will Durant, Nietzsche`s Philosophy starts by first fully accepting the Philosophy of Kant. Obviously Darwin was not the only influence on Nietzsche. Secondly I was also not talking about Nietzsche`s idea of Superman. I was talking about his ethics. And again it is the assessment of Will Durant that he derived his ethics out of so-called survival of fittest principle. My personal opinion was that it was a hasty derivation by Nietzsche.

If, for argumentation sake, we accept this survival of fittest principle, even then I do not accept any valid possibility of derivation of system of ethics out of this principle.

Survival of fittest is a ``unconscious`` phenomenon. Ethics is applicable to only ``conscious`` behaviour. A lion who kills an innocent animal, acts as per its natural biological instincts. Lion`s behaviour is pure instinctive and therefore ``unconscious``. Ethics means to take decisions, or to act as per suitable rational principles that properly differentiate between ``good`` and ``bad`` in various situations and circumstances.

Ethics is a conscious behaviour which is based on suitable rational principles. Any unconscious behaviour should not have become the basis of human ethics. Nietzsche had committed this mistake.

Your words:

Theory of Natural Selection paraphrased as Survival of the Fittest to explain and to provide justification for capitalist mode of social organization, obviously, has nothing to do with Darwin’s biological theory.

The right sequence has been like as below:

Survival of fittest (unconscious behavior) >>> Wrong application of unconscious behaviour to human ethics by Nietzsche >>> Justification for capitalistic (cruel) mode of social organization.

Secondly, I was told by someone that Allama Iqbal`s ``shaheen`` is not different from Nietzsche`s ``superman``. I myself however have not confirmed it.

Anyways, thanks.

Regards!

Re: #1 Khuram

While it is true that Darwin’s Origin of Species had already appeared when Nietzsche came up with his Superman but I am not sure as if Darwin was the philosophical inspiration for Nietzsche.

As for might is right, Nietzsche’s idea of Superman has been blamed for German militarism that the world witnessed later on but I suppose Nietzsche was only as much responsible for it as Darwin was for social Darwinism.

Theory of Natural Selection paraphrased as Survival of the Fittest to explain and to provide justification for capitalist mode of social organization, obviously, has nothing to do with Darwin’s biological theory.

The reality is that Nietzsche’s leap of human consciousness potentials is philosophical and cannot be Darwinian evolutionary potential, which is gradual, random and marred with missteps. Nietzsche conceived of human good as an ideal - the Superman where man is left behind and is laughed at the same way as man does at primitive apes (Thus Spoke Zarathustra).

You may be right but I find your views somewhat at variance with my understanding of Nietzsche. Nonetheless, I enjoyed your thoughts.

Thank you Sidra! Wonderful selections! Please share more soon.

Ooh, food for thought for the Wachowski brothers. Nice research, but you could have written more.

Freedom of thought can never be taught. Mind can only be considered as `free` if it has experienced confinement before. Man will always try to acquire superior consciousness and experience different states of mind. His transformation from a camel to a child is only the beginning.

correction:

Internal* and external ...

Nietzche is supporter of ``might is right`` approach. Thanks for presenting his views about Over Man and Metamorphoses. The idea of getting liberation from external and external thresholds is probably the same ``freedom from objective standards``, in the philosophy of Existentialism.

He is having accurate opinion that purpose of organized education system is just to produce workers for the already established social and economical system. Individuals are kept away from superior knowledge of self and reality.

It is his approach of ``might is right`` which is trying to convert a camel into lion. Nietzche was inspired by Darwin`s Survival of Fittest Principle. This ``principle`` was actually at the peak of its popularity in his time. So there is less surprize to see that he has hastily derived his ethics out of Darwin`s faulty principle.

Regards!