The Peanut Butter Superman - A thread to recontextualize pre-postmodern philosophy in today’s retarded world.

[SITHRAK!]

This is a thread for people interested in relating non-postmodern philosophy to contemporary life.

THE PEANUT BUTTER ÜBERMENSCH
Inspired by Friedrich Nietzsche.

Peanut butter jars, by their nature, are never truly empty. Short of washing a jar to completely remove all trace of its former contents, there will always remain within it more peanut butter.

Therefore we may conclude that, when faced with an ‘empty’ jar, the difference between having peanut butter to eat, and not having peanut butter to eat, is a matter of will.

The superior man, or übermensch, is able to harness his will in order to conquer obstacles athwart his path to success. To this man, the ‘amount’ of peanut butter is irrelevant; it does not exist in an indeterminate state- it either is, or is not. And if it ‘is’, then so must it be subject to his will.

Thus we can posit the existence of the ‘peanut butter superman’- a man who, by nature of the control and exertion of his will- can never truly run out of peanut butter. The inferior man, the untermensch, sees an ‘empty’ jar and does not intuit the opportunity to exert his will to achieve his goal of eating peanut butter. The superior man, the übermensch, instinctively knows that there will always be peanut butter within his grasp as a result of the harnessing and imposition of his will.

Discuss.

Edit: minor spelling error.

 

[Mike Matei's Penis]

"Everyone is talking about the new Superman movie, but I wish more people were talking about the old Superman peanut butter."

 

[Leather Gliscor]

What if we clean the jar with a silicone spatula?

 

[SITHRAK!]

What if we clean the jar with a silicone spatula?

Is it being wielded as an act of will? Because if so, the wielder must be an übermensch demonstrating his intention to impose his desires upon the peanut butter within. And thus the philosophy is validated.

 

[Leather Gliscor]

Is it being wielded as an act of will? Because if so, the wielder must be an übermensch demonstrating his intention to impose his desires upon the peanut butter within. And thus the philosophy is validated.

Move out of the way "yogurt males." I, the "peanut butter male," have made my entrance by imposing my will

 

[my penis is on fire]

The lesser known brother of the Peanut Butter Falcon

 

[Mike Matei's Penis]

The lesser known brother of the Peanut Butter Falcon

And The Peanut Butter Solution.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

The question is when the effort to scrape by Peanut Butter is greater than simply going into the store and buy a new one.

While I agree an untermensch Consoomer will quickly give up and throw out a several toast worth of PB. A person who wastes his time and effort scraping non existent PB is just miserly, which is a Jewish trait.

 

[SITHRAK!]

A person who wastes his time and effort scraping non existent PB is just miserly, which is a Jewish trait.

Is this simply a clever ruse to get me to admit that Jews are, in fact, übermensch?

It brings us to an interesting point: is the Jew a superman powered by penny-pinching penuriousness and his attempts to secure the peanut butter therefore less noble, somehow? Or are motivations irrelevant, and all that is required is the belief in the self, and the desire to exercise the will?

You have given me much to think about.

 

[Broadside]

The Ubermensch would just go "lmao fuck this shit" and buy another jar. That's what I do.

 

[SITHRAK!]

The Ubermensch would just go "lmao fuck this shit" and buy another jar. That's what I do.

This is a tacit acceptance of the individual’s inability to exert his will to secure the peanut butter. Going and buying more avoids the need to exert the will over the peanut butter one already possesses, instead of reforging the situation in accordance to one’s will.

And if a man declines to exercise his will, can he be said to truly be a man? The conscious bending of circumstance by intent is by definition a human trait.

Übermensch? No. No more than an animal, motivated by the desire to secure the simplest outcome.

 

[Broadside]

This is a tacit acceptance of the individual’s inability to exert his will to secure the peanut butter. Going and buying more avoids the need to exert the will over the peanut butter

I decided I didn't care enough for the last bit of peanut butter, I performed a simple cost/benefit analysis. My time is not worth scraping peanut butter. All in perfect accordance with Ubermensch ideology.

 

[SITHRAK!]

I decided I didn't care enough for the last bit of peanut butter, I performed a simple cost/benefit analysis. My time is not worth scraping peanut butter. All in perfect accordance with Ubermensch ideology.

Is it easier to secure peanut butter by buying more, than to extract some of the difficult but undeniably real peanut butter already within your possession?

If buying more is chosen by you as the easier path, you cannot claim to be a peanut butter superman. There is no question that more peanut butter may be available at the store; however the point of discussion is not whether one can purchase more, rather it is whether or not the individual possesses the will and ability to secure his desired outcome with the resources at hand.

The untermensch who simply ‘buys more’ does not grow or become stronger. And come the day when the store runs out, what then? The übermensch practiced in securing peanut butter from the ‘empty’ jar will be prepared and able to provide for himself. The mere grocery shopper, the untermensch, will not have reforged himself by exertion of his will, and will go sadly un-Skippied while the superior man feasts on nutty paste.

 

[Broadside]

Is it easier to secure peanut butter by buying more, than to extract some of the difficult but undeniably real

Th Ubermensch defines his reality.

rather it is whether or not the individual possesses the will and ability to secure his desired outcome with the resources at hand.

These are parameters YOU have set on what makes one an Ubermensch, not an objective fact.

I should also add that this kind of navel-gazing is PEAK Last Man behaviour.

And come the day when the store runs out, what then?

I will simply go to a different store.

 

[SITHRAK!]

Th Ubermensch defines his reality.

So does the schizophrenic. “I define my own reality” is postmodern garbage. Can you redefine your reality so that you can fly, or walk through walls, or speak any language you want without study? Of course not. Reality is concrete whether you like it or not.

These are parameters YOU have set on what makes one an Ubermensch, not an objective fact.

When proposing a philosophy it is necessary to define its boundaries. The boundaries of this philosophical inquiry involve a version of ‘man versus nature’ in which man confronts a situation as embodied by the peanut butter jar, and an either/or situation results. Either he exerts his will and secures peanut butter, or he is not in control of his will, and goes hungry. Tabling a third possibility irrelevant to the situation is a tacit abandonment of its fundamental nature.

I will simply go to a different store.

Your will is flaccid and I pity you for your weakness.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

I strongly dislike what Nietzsche has done to philosophical discussion. Especially among German non-left-wingers, generations of them are completely and utterly poisoned by Nietzsche's ideas. To show how wrong he is, I'm just gonna use the peanut butter jar frame because I can.

A jar is not a canvas for "will". It is a container with a determinate amount of peanut butter. Either it contains some or it does not. You can scrape the sides with a knife and get more, but only because there is remaining matter in there. When the jar is exhausted, no amount of willpower can manifest nut paste out of bare glass.

And that is the decisive point. Will does not create being. Being sets the limits in which will can move. The man who pretends his desire fills the jar is not a superman, he is no different than the schizophrenic who insists he can fly by flapping his toes.

Human action is not sorcery, it is purposeful choice under constraint. And when two people reach for the same bit of peanut butter, the question is not "who has stronger will", but how conflict is resolved. Here the only answer is property, exclusive control to prevent mutually destructive clashes.

The real lesson of the peanut butter jar is not that "reality bends to the strong", but that reality binds us all equally. And only by respecting boundaries in a scarce world can multiple wills coexist.

All Nietzsche's "will to power" produces is glass-licking delusion. The philosophy that survives contact with the jar is the recognition that jars are finite, goods are scarce, and only property norms keep men alive.

 

[SITHRAK!]

To show how wrong he is, I'm just gonna use the peanut butter jar frame because I can.

Now this is podracing!

A jar is not a canvas for "will". It is a container with a determinate amount of peanut butter. Either it contains some or it does not.

This is why I specifically wrote in the second line of my opening post that unless washed clean, the jar still contains peanut butter:

Short of washing a jar to completely remove all trace of its former contents, there will always remain within it more peanut butter.

And:

To this man, the ‘amount’ of peanut butter is irrelevant; it does not exist in an indeterminate state- it either is, or is not. And if it ‘is’, then so must it be subject to his will.

The question is not whether the peanut butter exists: the entire philosophy rests upon the requirement that the peanut butter does, and must exist, but that it is difficult to utilize. The difference is that the man of will secures his access while the untermensch chooses not to.

The real lesson of the peanut butter jar is not that "reality bends to the strong", but that reality binds us all equally.

The existence of peanut butter within what most would consider an ‘empty’ jar is reality, whether the jar is held by the superior man or the untermensch. The variable is the jar-holder’s ability to harness his will to secure the remaining goober paste.

 

[Broadside]

Especially among German non-left-wingers

Astounds me they never understand N was predicting their exact type when he wrote his polemics.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

The question is not whether the peanut butter exists: the entire philosophy rests upon the requirement that the peanut butter does, and must exist, but that it is difficult to utilize. The difference is that the man of will secures his access while the untermensch chooses not to.

Why are you redefining the jar as "never empty" by fiat, as long as there's any microscopic trace of peanut butter?
All you do is change the vocabulary, and not the ontology. Residue may exist, but existence does not guarantee availability. Matter can be real without being accessible in a life-sustaining way.

If extracting the residue costs more time or energy than it yields, then it is not "subject to will" in any meaningful sense. At that point, the will is exhausting itself against the limit of being, not bending reality. And that is why conflict arises. Two men may see residue, but only one can make effective use of it. The decisive variable is not mystical willpower, but whether property rules prevent them from obstructing each other.
So the "peanut butter superman" is not the man who insists jars are never empty. It's the man who recognizes that jars are finite, that residue is bounded by cost, and that only respect for boundaries lets will operate without self-destruction.

European philosophers like Nietzsche spent their energy gazing inward, as if you can generate truth by force of introspection. But reality is not contingent on self-perception. Reality is what it is, regardless of how much will, desire, or interpretation you project onto it. Once you are detached from the anchor of that fact, the slide is almost inevitable. From voluntarism to delusion, from "will to power" to the subjectivism and denial that later metastasized into the worst of postmodernism.

 

[SITHRAK!]

Why are you redefining the jar as "never empty" by fiat, as long as there's any microscopic trace of peanut butter?

Defining, not ‘redefining’. And because it’s an objective truth. Clearly not one many enjoy or accept, but such is the nature of truth.

All you do is change the vocabulary, and not the ontology.

I have changed nothing. Where many see an ‘empty’ jar, others see a jar which still contains some peanut butter. Some might argue from a functionalist standpoint, that the peanut butter is too difficult to obtain; but cutting back to the core of my argument, the superior man sees the truth, acknowledges it and works towards attaining his goal of extracting every last skerrick of peanut butter from the jar. This is an exercise of will.

Two men may see residue, but only one can make effective use of it. The decisive variable is not mystical willpower, but whether property rules prevent them from obstructing each other.

Ah, you posit two people in conflict over the jar. There may have been a misunderstanding. This would be a ‘man versus man’ situation and not, as I wrote earlier:

a version of ‘man versus nature’

Reality is what it is, regardless of how much will, desire, or interpretation you project onto it.

I agree:

“I define my own reality” is postmodern garbage. Can you redefine your reality so that you can fly, or walk through walls, or speak any language you want without study? Of course not

And the reality is that:

Short of washing a jar to completely remove all trace of its former contents, there will always remain within it more peanut butter.

Ergo, the difference in obtaining peanut butter from an ‘empty’ jar, or not, is simply the will to do so. This does not require bending reality or changing facts, just the transmuting of ‘what is’ into ‘what is desired’ by human action, which is in turn an act of will.