In Pursuit of Human Greatness and Flourishing: Abraham Lincoln vs Friedrich Nietzsche

Is the Nietzschean 'Ubermensch' superior to Lincoln's 'Better Angels' for individual growth and achievement?

When we think of a society that is not just capable of changing, but evolving and flourishing, for the better that is, morally speaking - what is the first thing that generally comes to mind?

It used to be individuals themselves making a difference, the famous quote goes something like ‘never underestimate a small group of people in changing the world, it’s been the only thing that has’ (or something similar).

This seems to make sense when you look at great things that have happened or have been achieved in history.

For example, the abolition of slavery was can ultimately be traced back to a small Christian activist group known as the Quakers, right?

Then it reached a wider group of people and from that resulted a shift in public consciousness, and the abolition movement, right?

WRONG.

Don’t you know already that white people are evil, and the only reason slavery was abolished was because white people didn’t want to look bad?

No one actually cared about principles of liberty and equality, it was just the rise of capitalism which made cotton fields obsolete!! It was just a big structural change, that no one person or persons can really be credited for or said to have played a major part in.

Such is commie, self-defeating, beta nonsense of course. There is plenty of evidence showing the opposite, much of which was recently outlined in the early chapters of William Macaskill’s wonderful book, What We Owe the Future.

To be clear, big structural changes to the economy (such as the shift from agriculture to capitalism) obviously do play a big part. But it isn’t the whole story which is what I’ve found some people in the ivory tower try to argue.

Because socialism, basically.

In this article, I will mostly take the position that it is true that it is a few individuals who do most of the leg work in getting good ideas off the ground.

I also want to consider this tension I think I (and possibly others in intellectual circles) might have between believing in the capabilities of a few great individuals and believing in the ordinary good of other people.

Which is true and which is better? Are they both true? If so, is one more true than the other?

In the spheres I find myself in, I have observed that there is a real kind of disdain, disbelief and even hatred towards the idea that the individual can achieve anything on their own.

To me it’s such a weird thing to hate – the idea that people can succeed without some kind of underlying environmental or cultural explanation.

Naturally, the only people an idea like this could ever offend or anger are socialists, because then they would have to realise their failures are likely their own and maybe even have to take some responsibility for the things that happen, bad or good, in their life.

So basically, commies, proggies and various specimens from the beta-male (and female, I guess) pool try and push this idea that things are a result of big structural changes of collective movements - and as already conceded, sometimes they are.

But quite frankly, I haven’t seen that.

I mean in my lifetime.

What I’ve actually seen happen much more frequently, is individual, extraordinary people, rather make a bigger difference, rather than large collective groups of people or movements.

Likewise, when I look around the world, I don’t see collective movements of morality and intelligence. Actually, it’s the opposite, I see a lot of intellectually embarrassing garbage ideas and idiots with long qualifications destroying our civilization. An exception to this observation, is maybe the animal rights movement and effective altruism (though each of those have their own issues which go beyond the scope of this peice).

Akin or speaking to something like Great Man Theory - I guess what I’ve personally witnessed is something closer to singular, great people and thinkers waxing large and making big impact. Whether it is superior intellect, heroic courage, extraordinary leadership abilities, or divine inspiration, some people do seem endowed with a special set of skills or a greater purpose that many others do not yet possess and are usually not interested in possessing. The theory appears to have originated with Thomas Carlyle, who gave a series of lectures on heroism published in the 19th Century.

Thus, what I do frequently, consistently see are great individuals doing great things.

Javier Milei, the bold new chainsaw slinging President of Argentina comes to mind. It appears he has managed to turn the country’s economy around and destroy DEI in a matter of months.

And it just doesn’t seem like there’s a bunch of people pulling his strings or advising his every choice - though of course he would have an advisory cabinet. But for the most part, it seems like it’s mostly him getting it done.  Of course, I’m also thinking of Elon Musk buying Twitter and basically restoring the ability of people to communicate without getting censored every time they share a Babylon Bee post.

I’m thinking of his mission to Mars, I’m thinking of activists like Gary Yourofsky and Ayaan Hirsi Ali fighting against some of the worst regimes on Earth (the animal slavery empire and Jihadism, respectively).

In a lot of cases these people’s impact on the world can at least be roughly measured.

Those are some contemporary examples, but what about historically?

To name a few people, from a diverse field, there was Churchill, Ada Lovelace, Allen Turing. Tesla. Hawking.

How can people look at these individuals who literally stopped Hitler and invented modern computers and see it in some way, at least, as a testament of the individual’s own will to power?

Lovelace, in particular, was the first person in the world to recognize that that the machine had applications beyond pure calculation and is often credited as being the first computer programmer. Again, it doesn’t seem like she had a bunch of help behind her. It’s basically what Ada herself said, she just had a brain that was ‘something more than mortal.’

We can also consider his basedness, Lord Churchill. Churchill’s tenure as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during World War II exemplifies the power of individual leadership in times of crisis. Churchill's resolve, oratory skills, and unyielding spirit played a crucial role in uniting Britain and bolstering the Allied effort against Nazi Germany.

Churchill’s strategic acumen and diplomatic skills were pivotal in securing crucial alliances, particularly with the United States. His ability to articulate a vision of victory and freedom contrasted sharply with the appeasement policies that had previously dominated British politics (notably from Chamberlain, the OG beta).

Churchill’s leadership during the darkest hours of the war illustrates how a single person, through sheer will and determination, can steer the destiny of an entire nation. He was also one of the only few people at the start to point out that Hitler was an egomaniacal dictator in pursuit of world domination - a plea which was foolishly ignored until and of course Hitler invaded Poland.

At a time when the British morale was at its lowest, Churchill's speeches instilled a sense of resilience and hope. His famous declaration that, "We shall fight on the beaches... we shall never surrender," became a rallying cry that galvanized the British people.

Maybe the Brits should listen to that now and gain some of that English spirit back before their country falls completely into the hands of Jihadists.

Nietzsche’s Superman vs Lincoln’s Better Angels

Unfortunately, the power of individuals or a small group of people can go both ways. This means it can also manifest very badly. A totalitarian shit hole like North Korea is an example of concentrated power amongst few individuals resulting in moral decay.

But I’m also thinking of irritating shit like the woke virus and proggie nonsense.

Ironically, I believe that wokeness is a perfect example of something that is actually not the thinking of the masses and is only genuinely believed by a small group of people who want to convince everyone else of their dumb ideas and make it seem like every day people believe them.

But it’s actually far more common amongst corporate and academic elites.

Ordinary working people are not as suspectable to these stupid ideas.

On contray, my intuition is that most people think they’re nuts (which they are) but are too scared to say anything because looking impolite these days is about the worst thing you could possibly do in the history of everything.

As a result, most normal people have just gone cringey beta mode and want to stay out of it.

So, you can see how the elite, overtly individualist kind of thinking can swing both ways.

Anyway, the point here is we need to balance the extraordinary with the common sense and every day. Because I too, sometimes find myself torn between what I call one’s inner Nietzsche and one’s inner Lincoln.

One can just get so angry at people’s slowness and stupidity that she thinks most people are really just too stupid and beyond help; they need to be told what to do 9/10 times, the other side; which I understand to be the ‘better angels’ of our nature is the ‘inner Lincoln’ which believes that most if not all people are capable of more.

Let me explain these terms a bit more.

I call it the Lincoln factor because I see Abraham Lincoln as someone who believed in the common good of people. He directly employed this philosophy to his leadership. In his first inaugural address delivered on March 4, 1861, on the eve of the Civil War, recall Lincoln famously expressed:

"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

Abraham Lincoln's philosophy is rooted in a belief in the common good and the power of collective action. Lincoln's emphasis on a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" underscores his faith in the democratic process and the importance of serving the needs and interests of the entire community. Lincoln's vision is one of unity, equality, and justice, where the well-being of the entire nation is prioritized over individual disputes and differences. His commitment to justice and equality resonates with those who believe in the transformative power of collective action and the pursuit of common goals for the greater good.

Lincoln’s appeals to common decency, unity, and reconciliation contrasts in a stark way to someone like Nietzsche, who believed that only a small group of people or individuals were capable of true knowledge and power and crucially, of surpassing limitations to become the Ubermensch (‘Over-man’ sometimes ‘Superman’). Closely related to this concept, is also the idea of Nietzschean Zionism which sought to empower the ‘new Jewish man’ through a strong national Jewish Identity.

In his 1883 book, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche characterized the Übermensch as a goal for humanity to set for itself. The Übermensch represents a shift from otherworldly Christian values and manifests the grounded human ideal. The Übermensch is someone who has "crossed over" the bridge, from the comfortable "house on the lake" to the mountains of unrest and solitude.

Nietzsche’s ideas are attractive to many because it holds the promise of not ‘selling out’ to tribal thinking and mass stupidity.

Though sometimes translations of the words differ and are disputed, Nietzsche is commonly attributed to have said the following in Beyond Good and Evil first published in 1886:

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

I think Nietzsche's Übermensch concept resonates with those moments of frustration and disillusionment when the shortcomings of society seem insurmountable. The idea of transcending conventional norms and asserting one's own values can be empowering, particularly in the face of mediocrity and conformity.

Nietzsche's emphasis on individual strength and self-reliance speaks to the desire to break free from the constraints of societal expectations and forge a path of personal excellence.

The Übermensch is often associated with individualism, strength, and a certain disregard for the concerns of the masses. The notion of seizing the will to power and creating one's own destiny pulls in those who feel stifled by the inertia of the masses or disillusioned by the failures of societal institutions.

I am often torn between the two frameworks.

I ask myself: which of the two should frame how I think and how I act? What kind of goals should I have as a person, scholar and professional?

I believe this internal conflict reflects a broader struggle to reconcile the individualistic urge for self-mastery and greatness with the communal impulse for unity and cooperation.

I have come to realize they are both necessary for the challenges which our civilization face.  Despite the apparent tension between Nietzsche's Übermensch and Lincoln's angels, each perspective offers valuable insights into the human condition, and neither can fully capture the complexity of human experience on its own.

This is because without individualist thinking and overly ambitious people who push boundaries, we don’t achieve great things. No one goes to the moon or mars or creates-discovers electricity.

But without common sense and decency and the everyday type people who reflect those values, you get idiot champagne socialists spreading their garbage heap of ideas to the rest of the world with other idiots who believe them.

Ultimately, with some natural crossover, I think that the Nietzsche’s superman, maybe, should drive one’s winning spirit; Lincoln’s angels should guide your morality and conscience as one pursues the path of excellence.