lovesNella said:

I believe that "change" is unattainable. it simply isn't possible. the mere semblance of it that we may (or may not) notice is virtual and evanescent.

 True "change" must be absolute. and as all things in this world are linked in a myriad of ways, the requirements for change are innumerable hence unachievable.

I am not convinced of this, because change is not necessarily absolute, nor necessarily impossible. But before going further into this subject, I'd like you to explain why do you believe the change is unattainable?

Larkin said:

I think change can be permanent if the stakes are high enough. I do agree with lovenella that willpower alone does not mean a person has truly changed, but rather they are able to overcome certain behavioral tendancies for the betterment of self. However, if a persons life is shaken enough, if for instance they have had a near death experience, say cancer, or a near fatal accident, or they have experienced profound loss as a result of their actions/behaviors, (divorce, loss of a child/spouse, loss of health, etc.) then I think a person can truly change because their heart has been altered. To assume that we are all chemically predestined to be a certain way, whether we act on those impulses or not, is to only see humanity from a narrow view. We are much more than we appear, and no two persons are exactly alike.

But I can see the point lovenella is trying to make, for instance, it is said that a professional athlete has learned what is required to play at that level by the age of 12, meaning that all the practice to stay in shape and perfect their form, skills, etc. after that age are negligible from the point of view that they will outpace or outperform the average person. In other words, from 13 onward, the average person stands to gain as much as any professional if we recieve the same training they do, it is what took place before that which makes the real difference, call it instinctual intangibles which are no longer able to be learned or taught after a certain point. So perhaps, using this example, true change is not possible after a certain age, and anything after that point is just us trying to ammend and alter the foundation already poured. Sorta like remodeling a house.

You forget that if the individual is removed all the ideas that prevents him to surpass (such as: kill God), nothing can really prevent it from becoming an Übermensch. Otherwise, your argument was…interesting.

Larkin said:

"You forget that if the individual is removed all the ideas that prevents him to surpass (such as: kill God), nothing can really prevent it from becoming an Übermensch. Otherwise, your argument was…interesting."

 

Yes, and now I think we are getting into the reasons why this argument cannot be proven one way or the other. Humans will always have a way to psychoanalyze our own phychoanalisis.  We think ourselves into circles and knots, just like Nietzsche did.

It is precisely to answer the questions that we invent answers. :P

I mean, all answers are good for questions, but we should not believe in anything. For example: if I often answers questions with philosophical concepts Niesztche is above all because it takes to surpass myself and not let myself be dominated by ideas. What you should know is no matter the answer you choose, it is preferable that it is one which can take you to be better, not in the way competition, but in the sense of surpassing, or if you prefer better, in the sense of being a better human being.