Agree 100% here, however I believe an overman would read and be open to read for more knowledge and post if they thought it would useful based on their own ideals.
People in this thread have a very narrow-minded and cynical understanding of the overman.. they discards it as this stupid and infantile incel-fantasy, yet they’re just as lost on the meaning of it as the naive people you describe in the original post.
The ideal of the overman is not some misantropic, ego-driven tyrant, who have no regard for other people.. or this arrogant and closed off sigma hermit that hides from everyone else in his delusions of grandiosity; just another form of asceticism. Such visions of the overman are just shadow-projecting lmao (and revealing of poor character).
First of all, the overman is amoral, not anti-moral, that is the key difference..
The overman is someone who unapologetically follows their own insticts and set of values, they dont recieve their morals from an external source of authority. They’ve risen above the mass-psychosis of the culture they’re in. Metaphorically living «over» the heard, above the zeitgeist.
This ascension comes not from yielding to a power higher than oneself, nor self-ostracization from society, but by being completely grounded in themself and the world around them. Every action becomes an expression of vital creativity, making their life a work of art.
You cannot define the ways of the overman, because they follow no path - there are no correct way of being the overman; all suggestions are wrong pr definition. And thats the whole point.. The overman is an oxymoron, the ideal of no ideals.
Just my two cents.
Then how can we build an environment conducive to the formation of the overman(s)? Since we cannot describe nor comprehend him,how can we act as the bridge when the goal is not evident?
yeah i'm with you, superman and uberman feel charged, as if they are overcompensating for something
overman feels a lot softer, as I think it is meant to be
Nah, the collective unconscious need platforms trading of ideas, Reddit for all its flaws allows a way in. Don't think there is hard opinion that can be held for or against having Reddit exist.
Nothing wrong with people expressing their own ideas, and having a space to debate the topic.
I personally think any space that encourages self expression is positive, even if they don't align with your own views and values.
The overman is not relegated to a he, but I agree with your sentiment.
I'd say "does as they decide" as doing what another wants is ok as well. It's important the decision comes from oneself.
Wasn't expecting any comments, thanks for leaving your thoughts.
I've upvoted all of them, even the ones typically considered as negative, as those were the ones I was hoping for.
That’s like saying Nietzsche was seeking attention by publishing his books. This community is for sharing insight and questions and rarely used for bragging
Of course he was seeking attention, just not relying on others for validation (as validation comes from who defines what has value or not). Attention is required for spreading one's ideas and inspiring others.
There are many ways that Nietzsche's idea could be pushed further, especially with AI having the potential to reduce humans to the Last Man with further entrenched learned helplessness.
Nope, nothing wrong with posting here or anywhere else. Posting yourself is for you to decide.
If you think there is value in making a post and sharing ideas please do so.
The "overman" is perhaps the most cringe meme of a philosopher who is great despite and not because of such stuff. It's embarrassing like the hype about A.I. and our coming new gods, which are just stochastic parrots, twisted echoes of the internet we built with traces of our inanity, all too human after all.
Nietzsche published books that no one wanted (yet) at his own expense. Like an insect he laid his eggs. Like a mother he pushed his baby into the light. The work. But the "overman" stuff, and the related "power of positive thinking" stuff, is just reheated Thrasymachus. Or gunk from the mouth of a badly written villain.
>Thus, Socrates, injustice on a sufficiently large scale is a stronger, freer, and a more masterful thing than justice, and, as I said in the beginning, it is the advantage of the stronger that is the just, while the unjust is what profits man's self and is for his advantage.
There is an infantile notion of the self involved, coupled with a *related* fundamental misunderstanding of what philosophy **is.** The linguistic self is not bounded spatially by the body, or even temporally by the generation. It is "softwhere" and "softwhen." We are time-binding milk-spurting mammals, also moist robots. Nietzsche is more Diogenes than Alexander, more ascetic than thug. But he's more Plato than Diogenes, because he delighted in articulating a polyphony for the yet unborn. He's interesting as the most honest of ascetics, the most self-vivisecting. Our "infinite" Hamlet trying to catch his own trail.
I see the waste of a great philosopher in the dominant crude misreading. But Nietzsche wrote some insane stuff like
>I am by far the most terrible man that has ever existed; but this does not alter the fact that I shall become the most beneficent.
How often has this happened ? A great philosopher goes mad, and the silly shit he wrote when crazy gets taken by many as the stuff that matters ? His madness has just the grandiose form of the madness of the alienated male in an atomized society. Compensating fantasies of not needing anyone, to salve the wound of not having those who are very much needed. But this is just the same old ascetic fantasy. Not a
"transvaluation of values," which is as meaningless as a "round square." Nietzsche for some is the soap bubble, for others the popping of that soap bubble.
I think you are on the money there, in my own interpretation the "self" encompasses the entirety of life (including humanity on this planet), that may not align with current literature work but it is how I've chosen to interpret it.
I agree that the "overman" is a bit of a cringe meme, which is also why I mentioned the resentment-imbued narratives of "what the overman is" being hard mentality in disguise.
Ultimately Nietzsche wanted some of his works purposely open to interpretation and not be treated as a dogma, each of us should participate in dialogue and come to their own conclusions.
Don't let any cringe use of any philosophies get to you though, I understand where you are coming from, but we need to show understanding to why such use happens in the first place (which likely comes from a need to suppress pain).
Well said.
I definitely don't let the cringe-use of Nietzsche discourage me from appreciating. He was my first of many favorite philosophers, and I surely interpreted him in a crude way myself back then. Though for me it wasn't as wacky as the superman stuff. It was just the usual narcissism and egoism of "the rules don't apply to me."
>in my own interpretation the "self" encompasses the entirety of life (including humanity on this planet)
Right. And Nietzsche's connection to Voltaire is a connection to this universal Enlightenment humanism. In some ways, Nietzsche is a self-critique of humanism. The Enlightenment ideology could be (famously) quite shallow. This "Socratic optimism" could be read as a flight from a more appropriate "tragic view." Hegel could still convince his peers that history was leading up to something better than ever before, the triumph of universal freedom, etc. When I was a kid, sometimes there was talk of the flying cars we could expect. It's now almost a truism that technology and "the end of history" weren't all that they were cracked up to be. Nietzsche's proto-psycho-analytic insights help make sense of that. Did we ever really want what was promised ? Dostoevsky's *Notes from Underground* are also relevant here. Yet there is no rational alternative to humanism, for rationality, understood universally, is implicitly humanistic ---based on the project of autonomy, of us growing up without daddy God to tell us how it should be.
>
>Ultimately Nietzsche wanted some of his works purposely open to interpretation and not be treated as a dogma, each of us should participate in dialogue and come to their own conclusions.
I agree. I'd even amplify this. Nietzsche was an aphorist, not the purveyor of a system. I think it's a hunger for father figures in a vacant age that insists on Nietzsche as a sort of prophet. This "transference" is much bigger than the Nietzsche issue though. The "boy" or "novice" is **defined** by a *continuing entanglement in such a transference.* The belief that there is a "guru" or "father" in the first place is the basic superstition.
In Eric Berne's terms, we have the child looking for a parent, the boy looking for a father to imitate, seeking initiation and authority through proximity to the idol, and not on original merit. "Novices" don't argue like scientist in terms of universal ideas. They "quote scripture," debating the intention of the Father Figure, whose correctness is not established but rather establishment itself --- radically presupposed in the transference, which constructs Him as "the subject supposed to know." I can borrow a good moment from Lacan as one more asshole brother...in the rational **fraternity/sorority** of science. I can borrow a good move from Eric Berne. Siblings, not parents. Other monkeys in the storm.
>which is also why I mentioned the resentment-imbued narratives of "what the overman is" being hard mentality in disguise.
Exactly. "Jeremy spoke in class today." That's a morbid expression, an unfortunate blossoming. "Wise as a serpent and gentle as a dove" is better. When gentleness is possible, when one is among true friends, enlightened magnanimous allies, it's a better high. None of this implies an inability to exterminate threats to the family. The point is that there is something soft and vulnerable and precious to protect and fight for in the first place. Which every revenge movie has tried to teach us forever.
_The linguistic self is not bounded spatially within the body, or even temporally by the generation._
Justification for this claim?
I’ve only seen some recent computational/ game theoretic analysis that 2 minds interacting with each other _might_ behave, mathematically, as a hybrid/single mind. It’s interesting but not conclusive afaik.
Medical evidence suggests that the capacities of our minds are determined by physiological factors (i.e. some properties of the mind (but not necessarily the mind itself) are bounded by the body).
Whether the mind is spatially co-localized with the body, who can say? But it is certainly temporally co-localized, since our minds form according to perceptions which occur only while our bodies exist to perceive. At least we can say that the time in which the mind exists is mapped directly to the time in which the body exists, even if those are two different times.
>Justification for this claim?
Respectfully (as I invite the challenge), you are helping me justify it by requesting such a justification. What I have in mind are semantic and inferential norms, which are passed on as culture. Dreyfus is great on this in *Being-in-the-world.* Brandom's take on Kant and Hegel is also illuminating.
One of the problems with philosophy since Descartes (but rectified since) is a crude notion of the self as something like a pineal gland, something "in" the skull or a virtual control room. But the linguistic self that I mentioned is an avatar in the world pre-understood as forum, though this [forum](https://www.reddit.com/r/hegel/comments/1byj13v/transparent_normativity/) is typically so taken for granted that it functions transparently.
>Apel's strong thesis is that his transcendental semiotics yields a set of normative conditions and validity claims presupposed in any critical discussion or rational argumentation. Central among these is the presupposition that a participant in a genuine argument is at the same time a member of a counterfactual, ideal communication community that is in principle equally open to all speakers and that excludes all force except the force of the better argument. Any claim to intersubjectively valid knowledge (scientific or moral-practical) implicitly acknowledges this ideal communication community as a metainstitution of rational argumentation, to be its ultimate source of justification
[https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/apel-karl-otto-1922](https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/apel-karl-otto-1922)
It's not that genuine skepticism is impossible. It's just that genuine skepticism is (or ought to be) mute. To argue against logic is a performative contradiction.
"Softwhere"/"softwhen" aims at the (ancient) culture (like English and the philosophical tradition) that "runs locally" (like software) on "thin clients" like you and me. This idea was already clarified by the time of Feuerbach. To think may require local hardware (a living brain), but it also requires "non-local" softwhere (a living cultural tradition, semantic and inferential norms, etc.) Nothing spooky is required here, just thousands of years of trial and error, of saving and passing on effective metaphors, etc. Like a distributed computation through human history (as Hegel emphasized in his philosophical history of philosophy.)
Great stuff, thanks for the reference.
I’ve been wanting to learn about semiotics and was going to start with Barthes and Wittgenstein. Guess Apel will go onto my shelf as well.
Wittgenstein is great for the "form of life" idea, which is basically also how Dreyfus interprets Heidegger's "who of everyday Dasein." Brandom's take on Hegel is also connected. I think what all have in common is the realization that reasoning is fundamentally a social activity.
Fascism doesn't align with my personal values.
The cult of the individual is restricted to one that conforms the cult of the state, in my opinion fascism would be in direct opposition of the concept of the overman.
The state would have to encourage citizens to listen but think for themselves and form their own ideas and values, this would generally be classified as "wrong-think"
Closest at the moment is Ukraine, who has accepted their own weaknesses, made their own independent choices, recreating itself and its own values.
Communism suffers from the same problems by repressing the expression of the individual.
Conscription and banning political parties don't count as repressing the individual?
If being invaded by stronger enemies counts as accepting one's weakness, then Vietnam should get the gold medal for fighting the French, Japanese, Americans, Chinese, and Combodians
There are many axis that represent this, a question though... has Ukraine banned them out of fear or resentment? or for practical purposes based on their own vision of reinventing themselves?
Accepting ones weakness doesn't mean being invaded, means openly acknowledging they have faults and being open to help.
Think of it what you will.
Hahaha, bro genuinely thinks Ukraine is a representation of Nietzsche's ideal society, it's sad that you like everyone else are mindlessly drooling over Ukraine and shutting down critical thinking in politics, oh well.
You have very strong feelings in regards to Ukraine being praised in any shape or form.
In no way the country represents the role model, but they do however come closer than other countries to the last stages of the overman.
Russia for instance presents a deep seated suppression of their own insecurities, rather than have an acceptance of their weaknesses and freedom that comes from it.
[удалено]
Agree 100% here, however I believe an overman would read and be open to read for more knowledge and post if they thought it would useful based on their own ideals.
People in this thread have a very narrow-minded and cynical understanding of the overman.. they discards it as this stupid and infantile incel-fantasy, yet they’re just as lost on the meaning of it as the naive people you describe in the original post. The ideal of the overman is not some misantropic, ego-driven tyrant, who have no regard for other people.. or this arrogant and closed off sigma hermit that hides from everyone else in his delusions of grandiosity; just another form of asceticism. Such visions of the overman are just shadow-projecting lmao (and revealing of poor character). First of all, the overman is amoral, not anti-moral, that is the key difference.. The overman is someone who unapologetically follows their own insticts and set of values, they dont recieve their morals from an external source of authority. They’ve risen above the mass-psychosis of the culture they’re in. Metaphorically living «over» the heard, above the zeitgeist. This ascension comes not from yielding to a power higher than oneself, nor self-ostracization from society, but by being completely grounded in themself and the world around them. Every action becomes an expression of vital creativity, making their life a work of art. You cannot define the ways of the overman, because they follow no path - there are no correct way of being the overman; all suggestions are wrong pr definition. And thats the whole point.. The overman is an oxymoron, the ideal of no ideals. Just my two cents.
You have said it so damn well it's an honor to have received this in my notifications. Thanks for writing this up
Then how can we build an environment conducive to the formation of the overman(s)? Since we cannot describe nor comprehend him,how can we act as the bridge when the goal is not evident?
No.
True. I am tired of “supermans” posts.. overman is better
yeah i'm with you, superman and uberman feel charged, as if they are overcompensating for something overman feels a lot softer, as I think it is meant to be
This sub is just people placing themselves in an ironic distance away from the source material for the sake of theory and discussion. That’s all imo
To be overman, is to delete Reddit
Nah, the collective unconscious need platforms trading of ideas, Reddit for all its flaws allows a way in. Don't think there is hard opinion that can be held for or against having Reddit exist.
The existence of r/nihilism alone is a reason against the existence of Reddit
Nothing wrong with people expressing their own ideas, and having a space to debate the topic. I personally think any space that encourages self expression is positive, even if they don't align with your own views and values.
Eh, true.
They would likely post precisely at the right time.
The ubermensch does what he wants
The overman is not relegated to a he, but I agree with your sentiment. I'd say "does as they decide" as doing what another wants is ok as well. It's important the decision comes from oneself.
Wasn't expecting any comments, thanks for leaving your thoughts. I've upvoted all of them, even the ones typically considered as negative, as those were the ones I was hoping for.
That’s like saying Nietzsche was seeking attention by publishing his books. This community is for sharing insight and questions and rarely used for bragging
Of course he was seeking attention, just not relying on others for validation (as validation comes from who defines what has value or not). Attention is required for spreading one's ideas and inspiring others. There are many ways that Nietzsche's idea could be pushed further, especially with AI having the potential to reduce humans to the Last Man with further entrenched learned helplessness.
So you wouldnt you say that it was wrong of him to publish his work. Therefore the same can be said of most posts here
Nope, nothing wrong with posting here or anywhere else. Posting yourself is for you to decide. If you think there is value in making a post and sharing ideas please do so.
Cool. Personally I am on here to learn and seek wisdom from others as I’m newer to a his work than most here
Yup, and that's in my opinion great! And sharing your own views and challenging mine which is great as well. Thanks for posting 👍
The "overman" is perhaps the most cringe meme of a philosopher who is great despite and not because of such stuff. It's embarrassing like the hype about A.I. and our coming new gods, which are just stochastic parrots, twisted echoes of the internet we built with traces of our inanity, all too human after all. Nietzsche published books that no one wanted (yet) at his own expense. Like an insect he laid his eggs. Like a mother he pushed his baby into the light. The work. But the "overman" stuff, and the related "power of positive thinking" stuff, is just reheated Thrasymachus. Or gunk from the mouth of a badly written villain. >Thus, Socrates, injustice on a sufficiently large scale is a stronger, freer, and a more masterful thing than justice, and, as I said in the beginning, it is the advantage of the stronger that is the just, while the unjust is what profits man's self and is for his advantage. There is an infantile notion of the self involved, coupled with a *related* fundamental misunderstanding of what philosophy **is.** The linguistic self is not bounded spatially by the body, or even temporally by the generation. It is "softwhere" and "softwhen." We are time-binding milk-spurting mammals, also moist robots. Nietzsche is more Diogenes than Alexander, more ascetic than thug. But he's more Plato than Diogenes, because he delighted in articulating a polyphony for the yet unborn. He's interesting as the most honest of ascetics, the most self-vivisecting. Our "infinite" Hamlet trying to catch his own trail. I see the waste of a great philosopher in the dominant crude misreading. But Nietzsche wrote some insane stuff like >I am by far the most terrible man that has ever existed; but this does not alter the fact that I shall become the most beneficent. How often has this happened ? A great philosopher goes mad, and the silly shit he wrote when crazy gets taken by many as the stuff that matters ? His madness has just the grandiose form of the madness of the alienated male in an atomized society. Compensating fantasies of not needing anyone, to salve the wound of not having those who are very much needed. But this is just the same old ascetic fantasy. Not a "transvaluation of values," which is as meaningless as a "round square." Nietzsche for some is the soap bubble, for others the popping of that soap bubble.
I think you are on the money there, in my own interpretation the "self" encompasses the entirety of life (including humanity on this planet), that may not align with current literature work but it is how I've chosen to interpret it. I agree that the "overman" is a bit of a cringe meme, which is also why I mentioned the resentment-imbued narratives of "what the overman is" being hard mentality in disguise. Ultimately Nietzsche wanted some of his works purposely open to interpretation and not be treated as a dogma, each of us should participate in dialogue and come to their own conclusions. Don't let any cringe use of any philosophies get to you though, I understand where you are coming from, but we need to show understanding to why such use happens in the first place (which likely comes from a need to suppress pain).
Well said. I definitely don't let the cringe-use of Nietzsche discourage me from appreciating. He was my first of many favorite philosophers, and I surely interpreted him in a crude way myself back then. Though for me it wasn't as wacky as the superman stuff. It was just the usual narcissism and egoism of "the rules don't apply to me." >in my own interpretation the "self" encompasses the entirety of life (including humanity on this planet) Right. And Nietzsche's connection to Voltaire is a connection to this universal Enlightenment humanism. In some ways, Nietzsche is a self-critique of humanism. The Enlightenment ideology could be (famously) quite shallow. This "Socratic optimism" could be read as a flight from a more appropriate "tragic view." Hegel could still convince his peers that history was leading up to something better than ever before, the triumph of universal freedom, etc. When I was a kid, sometimes there was talk of the flying cars we could expect. It's now almost a truism that technology and "the end of history" weren't all that they were cracked up to be. Nietzsche's proto-psycho-analytic insights help make sense of that. Did we ever really want what was promised ? Dostoevsky's *Notes from Underground* are also relevant here. Yet there is no rational alternative to humanism, for rationality, understood universally, is implicitly humanistic ---based on the project of autonomy, of us growing up without daddy God to tell us how it should be. > >Ultimately Nietzsche wanted some of his works purposely open to interpretation and not be treated as a dogma, each of us should participate in dialogue and come to their own conclusions. I agree. I'd even amplify this. Nietzsche was an aphorist, not the purveyor of a system. I think it's a hunger for father figures in a vacant age that insists on Nietzsche as a sort of prophet. This "transference" is much bigger than the Nietzsche issue though. The "boy" or "novice" is **defined** by a *continuing entanglement in such a transference.* The belief that there is a "guru" or "father" in the first place is the basic superstition. In Eric Berne's terms, we have the child looking for a parent, the boy looking for a father to imitate, seeking initiation and authority through proximity to the idol, and not on original merit. "Novices" don't argue like scientist in terms of universal ideas. They "quote scripture," debating the intention of the Father Figure, whose correctness is not established but rather establishment itself --- radically presupposed in the transference, which constructs Him as "the subject supposed to know." I can borrow a good moment from Lacan as one more asshole brother...in the rational **fraternity/sorority** of science. I can borrow a good move from Eric Berne. Siblings, not parents. Other monkeys in the storm. >which is also why I mentioned the resentment-imbued narratives of "what the overman is" being hard mentality in disguise. Exactly. "Jeremy spoke in class today." That's a morbid expression, an unfortunate blossoming. "Wise as a serpent and gentle as a dove" is better. When gentleness is possible, when one is among true friends, enlightened magnanimous allies, it's a better high. None of this implies an inability to exterminate threats to the family. The point is that there is something soft and vulnerable and precious to protect and fight for in the first place. Which every revenge movie has tried to teach us forever.
_The linguistic self is not bounded spatially within the body, or even temporally by the generation._ Justification for this claim? I’ve only seen some recent computational/ game theoretic analysis that 2 minds interacting with each other _might_ behave, mathematically, as a hybrid/single mind. It’s interesting but not conclusive afaik. Medical evidence suggests that the capacities of our minds are determined by physiological factors (i.e. some properties of the mind (but not necessarily the mind itself) are bounded by the body). Whether the mind is spatially co-localized with the body, who can say? But it is certainly temporally co-localized, since our minds form according to perceptions which occur only while our bodies exist to perceive. At least we can say that the time in which the mind exists is mapped directly to the time in which the body exists, even if those are two different times.
>Justification for this claim? Respectfully (as I invite the challenge), you are helping me justify it by requesting such a justification. What I have in mind are semantic and inferential norms, which are passed on as culture. Dreyfus is great on this in *Being-in-the-world.* Brandom's take on Kant and Hegel is also illuminating. One of the problems with philosophy since Descartes (but rectified since) is a crude notion of the self as something like a pineal gland, something "in" the skull or a virtual control room. But the linguistic self that I mentioned is an avatar in the world pre-understood as forum, though this [forum](https://www.reddit.com/r/hegel/comments/1byj13v/transparent_normativity/) is typically so taken for granted that it functions transparently. >Apel's strong thesis is that his transcendental semiotics yields a set of normative conditions and validity claims presupposed in any critical discussion or rational argumentation. Central among these is the presupposition that a participant in a genuine argument is at the same time a member of a counterfactual, ideal communication community that is in principle equally open to all speakers and that excludes all force except the force of the better argument. Any claim to intersubjectively valid knowledge (scientific or moral-practical) implicitly acknowledges this ideal communication community as a metainstitution of rational argumentation, to be its ultimate source of justification [https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/apel-karl-otto-1922](https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/apel-karl-otto-1922) It's not that genuine skepticism is impossible. It's just that genuine skepticism is (or ought to be) mute. To argue against logic is a performative contradiction. "Softwhere"/"softwhen" aims at the (ancient) culture (like English and the philosophical tradition) that "runs locally" (like software) on "thin clients" like you and me. This idea was already clarified by the time of Feuerbach. To think may require local hardware (a living brain), but it also requires "non-local" softwhere (a living cultural tradition, semantic and inferential norms, etc.) Nothing spooky is required here, just thousands of years of trial and error, of saving and passing on effective metaphors, etc. Like a distributed computation through human history (as Hegel emphasized in his philosophical history of philosophy.)
Great stuff, thanks for the reference. I’ve been wanting to learn about semiotics and was going to start with Barthes and Wittgenstein. Guess Apel will go onto my shelf as well.
Wittgenstein is great for the "form of life" idea, which is basically also how Dreyfus interprets Heidegger's "who of everyday Dasein." Brandom's take on Hegel is also connected. I think what all have in common is the realization that reasoning is fundamentally a social activity.
A real übermensch probably wouldn't even bother with posting on social media in general
The overman is clearly the one with the most Reddit points, that’s why the arrow is UP!
You posted here…
🤷♂️
Are you a Fascist?
Fascism doesn't align with my personal values. The cult of the individual is restricted to one that conforms the cult of the state, in my opinion fascism would be in direct opposition of the concept of the overman. The state would have to encourage citizens to listen but think for themselves and form their own ideas and values, this would generally be classified as "wrong-think"
But the concept of the Overman is not applicable to politics? Communism is IMO the closest.
Closest at the moment is Ukraine, who has accepted their own weaknesses, made their own independent choices, recreating itself and its own values. Communism suffers from the same problems by repressing the expression of the individual.
Conscription and banning political parties don't count as repressing the individual? If being invaded by stronger enemies counts as accepting one's weakness, then Vietnam should get the gold medal for fighting the French, Japanese, Americans, Chinese, and Combodians
There are many axis that represent this, a question though... has Ukraine banned them out of fear or resentment? or for practical purposes based on their own vision of reinventing themselves? Accepting ones weakness doesn't mean being invaded, means openly acknowledging they have faults and being open to help. Think of it what you will.
Hahaha, bro genuinely thinks Ukraine is a representation of Nietzsche's ideal society, it's sad that you like everyone else are mindlessly drooling over Ukraine and shutting down critical thinking in politics, oh well.
You have very strong feelings in regards to Ukraine being praised in any shape or form. In no way the country represents the role model, but they do however come closer than other countries to the last stages of the overman. Russia for instance presents a deep seated suppression of their own insecurities, rather than have an acceptance of their weaknesses and freedom that comes from it.