Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
First, Dr. Lecter, not a lecturer. Secondly, the series “Hannibal” is an abomination, including from the point of view of the image of the main character. The authors showed a complete lack of understanding. Of all the films, you can only focus on “The Silence of the Lambs”, everything else is slag. Third, one of the fundamental features of the superman in Nietzsche is creativity. The superman creates a new life, a new ideal, and for this he tramples on the old ones. Lecter, for all the power of this image, creates nothing and is unable to lead anyone. He is a connoisseur, not a creator. He is a real connoisseur, a fine connoisseur – this is the reason for his irritation, which goes up to murder and cannibalism. But that's also his weakness.
I think it's both yes and no. And all this because Nietzsche's idea of the superman had in some ways not quite clear outlines and signs, first of all for himself – Nietzsche himself was a very contradictory person, in whose philosophy it is difficult to see a clear sequence in terms of expressing his beliefs – he overthrew the existing and tried to look and even in some way “evoke”, sow the future. I think that he was very wrong about man – there is no superman as something more developed-all these supermen are basically simple psychopaths and calling them supermen is stupid and not reasonable. I would say that Nietzsche confused the superman with the super-beast or super – snake-where the human is leveled for the sake of the animal.�
I have already shared here more than once that in my opinion Nietzsche simply slammed the idea of the superman in Christ's teaching about the New Man, who differs from the natural man in that he has a different essence, regenerated from the Spirit of God through faith in Christ as the Messiah – Sent Savior to the world. During Nietzsche's time, many people did this – they took Biblical ideas and transformed them into something foreign to the religious path – they disguised these ideas and redirected them in a different direction. By the way, Nietzsche himself noticed this-he said that democracy, liberalism, the ideas of socialism, humanism, and much more are light versions of Christianity, a Christianity that has lost its tension – the so-called pseudo-morphoses of Christian ideals. The irony is that Nietzsche, on the contrary, being an opponent of everything and everything, moved in the opposite direction and did not reduce the tension towards Christianity, but added to it the tension in the form of self – will-the human will. This is the nature of his ideas in my opinion. This tension, I think, killed him.