Let me start this disquisition by admiring the great philosophers who lived before us and the great minds that fortunately exist in our time.

The achievement of one's highest capacity and morality, originally dispensed as separate treatises, are explored in an intersecting light hereunder. This disquisition aims to conjoin the thoughts of the "Western Canon" and the "Great Books of the Eastern World".

The quest for self-perfection is a latent spark in all humans, yet few fan it into flame. Most succumb to carnal desires, resigned to the notion that our humanity caps our potential. Is it really true that we are "limited by our virtue of being human"? Then how is it so that a select few humans in history and present have defied what is considered humanly impossible for the rest of us? Nietzsche would say that this is because of your intrinsic values.

Intrinsic values are underpinned by individual morality, which, according to Nietzsche, happens to be of two types: "Master Morality" and "Slave Morality". Nietzsche classifies humans and their thoughts as those of masters and slaves. The masters are the yes-sayers, and the slaves are the naysayers. Even if we stop right here, it is clear how the ruler and the ruled in any society throughout history are formed. The rulers have had relentless optimism and a high self-image, while the ruled have had a pessimistic view of their world while simultaneously desiring more.

Then, is one's highest capacity capped by one's own morals?

Watering down the same concepts in the modern world, the ruler becomes the optimist, and the ruled becomes the pessimist. The perspective of the ruled towards the ruler has not changed much as well. Pessimists mostly admire the exceptional ones and sometimes despise them. But this despisement is not rooted in the fact that the pessimist could not humanly achieve what the optimist did, but in the fact that it was possible to do so and the pessimist chose not to act on it.

Elucidating on this, the master morality prizes qualities like strength, ambition, and assertiveness, typically resonating with the ruler. The slave morality prizes qualities like humility, patience, and empathy, typically resonating with the ruled.

So the realization in the quest for self-perfection is the ability to act on perfectionism, to be indescribably optimistic about oneself, so much so that perfection becomes fate. Nietzsche’s Ecce Homo boasts titles like "Why I Am So Wise," not as arrogance, but as a testament to his optimism. He deemed this the Ubermensch’s essence: a higher human who transcends limits by willing their destiny. Not that most of these chapters, when taken at face value, are incorrect, Nietzsche was indeed exceptional in many ways, but his justification for these titles is even better.

Nietzsche says that he was fated to do what he did in his life, and hence, he is indeed wise, clever, and a good author in his own right. But he was able to do so because he was that much optimistic about himself. He says that this is an indispensable quality of the Ubermensch, "the higher man". The ubermensch, at its core, is an entirely different tangent of its own and is not even remotely similar to what we think of exceptional humans in this age.

If morality shapes one's existence so much, then finding the root of morality will be crucial in order to mould one's life as one wishes. Morality emerges where individual experience interprets societal norms—Jesus forged humility from oppression, and Alexander forged strength from conquest. Society is largely shaped by cultures and traditions, which in turn are directly influenced by customary theologies. By extension, morality differs vastly among humans. No, it would be a great disservice to anthropology to call it just an extension; this is empirical evidence.

The Greco-Roman society lionized strength, assertiveness, and all the qualities of the "master morality" in the highest regard. The Iliad itself starts with Achilles committing murder, arson, and inhuman atrocities, which at the time were thought to be good, provided that one's own glory benefited from doing so. Even after Achilles is done with his display of wrath, the very next thought he has is that of his own beauty and glory and how this act will be written in history books under his name.

The feudal Japanese society echoed this thought. Killing gods is a trope that is unmissable in Japanese mythology and is thought to be righteous to do so. This is because killing a god in these writings "ascends one's own spirit" and the killer then takes the place of the god, much similar to a succession. The Japanese warrior class, the Samurai, would fight to the death to protect their honor, and if they failed to do so, they would have to commit seppuku, literally belly-cutting.

The exceptional human reshapes inherited morals into a tool for transcendence, not submission.

These morals can have gone extinct through the mass conversion of the West into Christianity and the East into Buddhism. While the pantheistic religions believed in asserting dominance, coercion, and power over the other as virtuous, the monotheistic religions condemned it as a grave sin. Nietzsche goes on to call monotheistic religions "slave-minded" simply because they suppress the human ability of conquest and power. What the Romans thought of as love became lust, wealth became greed, conquest became wrath, and glory became pride.

Nietzsche errs in dismissing religion outright—its chains or wings depend on the mind wielding it. Christianity started with Jesus Christ, the son of a carpenter, who was manhunted by the Romans and crucified on the cross. Comparing the life of Jesus Christ with Alexander of Macedonia, it is clear that Jesus would think of power, wealth, use of force, and everything that is associated with the rulers as a sin to repent for. One could only preach according to what one experiences.

"There is nothing impossible to him who will try.", said Alexander as he plundered through some town in Eastern Europe on what was just another Tuesday for him. "The meek shall inherit the earth.", said Jesus, and he was nailed to the cross. It just so happens that the rulers are few and the ruled are many; hence, Jesus' teachings are regarded as divine wisdom. Does religion then stifle perfection, and is Hegel right in saying that God is dead and anything is permitted? Jesus’s meekness inspired transcendence through sacrifice, not submission. It’s a lens—chains for some, wings for others. The question is how one wields it.

While Nietzsche would be the very antithesis of Plato, they are quite surprisingly intersected in their end goals. Nietzsche believes that there is no objective truth, which is tremendously surprising, coming from someone who believed anything to be objectively correct if modern science mildly endorsed it. So his thought process on morality can be summarized as "do what you must to not be enslaved by the world, anything goes". On the contrary, Plato believed in an objective truth, goodness, and a moral imperative to strive towards them.

Though Nietzsche denies objective truth and Plato pursues it, both urge transcendence beyond societal shackles—Nietzsche through will, Plato through wisdom.

In Plato's The Republic, he presents the Allegory of the Cave in which people inside a cave mistake the shadows of objects to be the objects themselves. This is until one person rises to the surface and sees the objects for what they truly are: the truth. This is a much more condensed version of the allegory but the general idea Plato presents is that of seeking the truth through knowledge and discipline, both aspects required to escape the cave. In this regard, there is an objective truth, but the allegory also emphasizes transcending societal norms, something that Nietzsche stresses in his own work.

If we were to venture further east around 300 BC, we would encounter Vishnu Gupta. Vishnu Gupta, popularly known as Chanakya, is an almost impossible amalgamation of Nietzsche and Plato, and also one with the view of pragmatic morality. In a sense, this makes him the best of both worlds, or the worst, depending on how one views truth and morality. Although Chanakya lived during the same time as Plato, it is quite unheard of that their ideas were reciprocated among each other. And yet, in his seminal work, The Arthashastra, Chanakya presents a view of morality in the form of statecraft, which is both objective and subjective.

Chanakya believes that objective thoughts, such as the ruler having a duty of goodwill to their people, can not be disputed and must be carried out as a responsibility. Simultaneously, he also believes that values and morals are mere tools in statecraft and in one's life. He believes that these values can be adapted according to circumstance, but what he differs on is that the values can only be adapted if the adaptation is for the greater good. Throwing much-deserved criticism his way, this concept of the "greater good" comes from a man who kept Vishkanyas, young women groomed to be lust murderers and doomed to die after their purpose was fulfilled.

In the Bhagavad Gita, a text that I consider to be more philosophical than religious, Krishna fuses these threads. Throughout Karma Yoga, chapter three of the book, Krishna blends Nietzsche, Plato, and Chanakya into a divine potion and gives it to Arjun in the form of what is commonly called the kartā kāryā, “what one must do”. The context is when Arjun recoils when facing his kin in war. Arjun views that it is morally wrong to go to war against them. Krishna tells Arjun that there is no other choice than to fire his arrow "for this is your fate.", emphasizing that righteousness lies in selfless action, not sentiment.

In The Journey to the West, a text that I also consider metaphorically philosophical, Wu Cheng'en introduces the character of Sun Wukong. Wukong is perhaps the most powerful and the wisest character in fiction, rightfully self-proclaimed "Great Sage Equal of Heaven". Yet his journey of acquiring such immense power and intellect is rooted in his duty to his subjects on the Flower and Fruit Mountain. Everything that he did was to protect his subjects and to end heavenly discrimination against them. It is to be noted that Wukong immensely respected the Buddha, his wisdom honed by duty to the Buddha’s ideals.

From these texts, it can be concluded that both the Western Canon and the Great Books of the Eastern World agree the higher human strives for personal excellence and the collective good. This path of righteousness, as dubbed by Krishna, or the philosopher-king as dubbed by Plato, or the Higher Man as dubbed by Nietzsche, all strive to achieve the greater good, be it for oneself or the collective.

Self-perfection demands a master mentality—not selfish egoism, but a will so potent it radiates outward. It is by fully adopting the ‘master mentality’ rather than ‘master morality’. Becoming the yes-sayer, the doer, the optimist, the fated. But it is also not achieved by doing what is selfish just because one believes that God is dead and anything goes. Even though morals may differ in execution, the end goal should be that which benefits the collective. Every act of one aspiring towards perfectionism must be selfless, dedicated to the collective, and never to oneself. A perfect human would be deemed ideal in the eyes of the ruler and the ruled alike.

It is also not enough that one does what is required selflessly. One must do it consistently, with discipline and perspicacity for one's shortcomings. One must also act in the present and not indulge in thought. And when one does act, one must do it tour de force. To put it in Nietzsche's own words, you must completely devote yourself to your work, and that work will provide you with the meaning of life.

Lastly, have passion.

Let your meaning consume you in flames, and you will find fulfillment.

Let me start this disquisition by admiring the great philosophers who lived before us and the great minds that fortunately exist in our time.

The achievement of one's highest capacity and morality, originally dispensed as separate treatises, are explored in an intersecting light hereunder. This disquisition aims to conjoin the thoughts of the "Western Canon" and the "Great Books of the Eastern World".

The quest for self-perfection is a latent spark in all humans, yet few fan it into flame. Most succumb to carnal desires, resigned to the notion that our humanity caps our potential. Is it really true that we are "limited by our virtue of being human"? Then how is it so that a select few humans in history and present have defied what is considered humanly impossible for the rest of us? Nietzsche would say that this is because of your intrinsic values.

Intrinsic values are underpinned by individual morality, which, according to Nietzsche, happens to be of two types: "Master Morality" and "Slave Morality". Nietzsche classifies humans and their thoughts as those of masters and slaves. The masters are the yes-sayers, and the slaves are the naysayers. Even if we stop right here, it is clear how the ruler and the ruled in any society throughout history are formed. The rulers have had relentless optimism and a high self-image, while the ruled have had a pessimistic view of their world while simultaneously desiring more.

Then, is one's highest capacity capped by one's own morals?

Watering down the same concepts in the modern world, the ruler becomes the optimist, and the ruled becomes the pessimist. The perspective of the ruled towards the ruler has not changed much as well. Pessimists mostly admire the exceptional ones and sometimes despise them. But this despisement is not rooted in the fact that the pessimist could not humanly achieve what the optimist did, but in the fact that it was possible to do so and the pessimist chose not to act on it.

Elucidating on this, the master morality prizes qualities like strength, ambition, and assertiveness, typically resonating with the ruler. The slave morality prizes qualities like humility, patience, and empathy, typically resonating with the ruled.

So the realization in the quest for self-perfection is the ability to act on perfectionism, to be indescribably optimistic about oneself, so much so that perfection becomes fate. Nietzsche’s Ecce Homo boasts titles like "Why I Am So Wise," not as arrogance, but as a testament to his optimism. He deemed this the Ubermensch’s essence: a higher human who transcends limits by willing their destiny. Not that most of these chapters, when taken at face value, are incorrect, Nietzsche was indeed exceptional in many ways, but his justification for these titles is even better.

Nietzsche says that he was fated to do what he did in his life, and hence, he is indeed wise, clever, and a good author in his own right. But he was able to do so because he was that much optimistic about himself. He says that this is an indispensable quality of the Ubermensch, "the higher man". The ubermensch, at its core, is an entirely different tangent of its own and is not even remotely similar to what we think of exceptional humans in this age.

If morality shapes one's existence so much, then finding the root of morality will be crucial in order to mould one's life as one wishes. Morality emerges where individual experience interprets societal norms—Jesus forged humility from oppression, and Alexander forged strength from conquest. Society is largely shaped by cultures and traditions, which in turn are directly influenced by customary theologies. By extension, morality differs vastly among humans. No, it would be a great disservice to anthropology to call it just an extension; this is empirical evidence.

The Greco-Roman society lionized strength, assertiveness, and all the qualities of the "master morality" in the highest regard. The Iliad itself starts with Achilles committing murder, arson, and inhuman atrocities, which at the time were thought to be good, provided that one's own glory benefited from doing so. Even after Achilles is done with his display of wrath, the very next thought he has is that of his own beauty and glory and how this act will be written in history books under his name.

The feudal Japanese society echoed this thought. Killing gods is a trope that is unmissable in Japanese mythology and is thought to be righteous to do so. This is because killing a god in these writings "ascends one's own spirit" and the killer then takes the place of the god, much similar to a succession. The Japanese warrior class, the Samurai, would fight to the death to protect their honor, and if they failed to do so, they would have to commit seppuku, literally belly-cutting.

The exceptional human reshapes inherited morals into a tool for transcendence, not submission.

These morals can have gone extinct through the mass conversion of the West into Christianity and the East into Buddhism. While the pantheistic religions believed in asserting dominance, coercion, and power over the other as virtuous, the monotheistic religions condemned it as a grave sin. Nietzsche goes on to call monotheistic religions "slave-minded" simply because they suppress the human ability of conquest and power. What the Romans thought of as love became lust, wealth became greed, conquest became wrath, and glory became pride.

Nietzsche errs in dismissing religion outright—its chains or wings depend on the mind wielding it. Christianity started with Jesus Christ, the son of a carpenter, who was manhunted by the Romans and crucified on the cross. Comparing the life of Jesus Christ with Alexander of Macedonia, it is clear that Jesus would think of power, wealth, use of force, and everything that is associated with the rulers as a sin to repent for. One could only preach according to what one experiences.

"There is nothing impossible to him who will try.", said Alexander as he plundered through some town in Eastern Europe on what was just another Tuesday for him. "The meek shall inherit the earth.", said Jesus, and he was nailed to the cross. It just so happens that the rulers are few and the ruled are many; hence, Jesus' teachings are regarded as divine wisdom. Does religion then stifle perfection, and is Hegel right in saying that God is dead and anything is permitted? Jesus’s meekness inspired transcendence through sacrifice, not submission. It’s a lens—chains for some, wings for others. The question is how one wields it.

While Nietzsche would be the very antithesis of Plato, they are quite surprisingly intersected in their end goals. Nietzsche believes that there is no objective truth, which is tremendously surprising, coming from someone who believed anything to be objectively correct if modern science mildly endorsed it. So his thought process on morality can be summarized as "do what you must to not be enslaved by the world, anything goes". On the contrary, Plato believed in an objective truth, goodness, and a moral imperative to strive towards them.

Though Nietzsche denies objective truth and Plato pursues it, both urge transcendence beyond societal shackles—Nietzsche through will, Plato through wisdom.

In Plato's The Republic, he presents the Allegory of the Cave in which people inside a cave mistake the shadows of objects to be the objects themselves. This is until one person rises to the surface and sees the objects for what they truly are: the truth. This is a much more condensed version of the allegory but the general idea Plato presents is that of seeking the truth through knowledge and discipline, both aspects required to escape the cave. In this regard, there is an objective truth, but the allegory also emphasizes transcending societal norms, something that Nietzsche stresses in his own work.

If we were to venture further east around 300 BC, we would encounter Vishnu Gupta. Vishnu Gupta, popularly known as Chanakya, is an almost impossible amalgamation of Nietzsche and Plato, and also one with the view of pragmatic morality. In a sense, this makes him the best of both worlds, or the worst, depending on how one views truth and morality. Although Chanakya lived during the same time as Plato, it is quite unheard of that their ideas were reciprocated among each other. And yet, in his seminal work, The Arthashastra, Chanakya presents a view of morality in the form of statecraft, which is both objective and subjective.

Chanakya believes that objective thoughts, such as the ruler having a duty of goodwill to their people, can not be disputed and must be carried out as a responsibility. Simultaneously, he also believes that values and morals are mere tools in statecraft and in one's life. He believes that these values can be adapted according to circumstance, but what he differs on is that the values can only be adapted if the adaptation is for the greater good. Throwing much-deserved criticism his way, this concept of the "greater good" comes from a man who kept Vishkanyas, young women groomed to be lust murderers and doomed to die after their purpose was fulfilled.

In the Bhagavad Gita, a text that I consider to be more philosophical than religious, Krishna fuses these threads. Throughout Karma Yoga, chapter three of the book, Krishna blends Nietzsche, Plato, and Chanakya into a divine potion and gives it to Arjun in the form of what is commonly called the kartā kāryā, “what one must do”. The context is when Arjun recoils when facing his kin in war. Arjun views that it is morally wrong to go to war against them. Krishna tells Arjun that there is no other choice than to fire his arrow "for this is your fate.", emphasizing that righteousness lies in selfless action, not sentiment.

In The Journey to the West, a text that I also consider metaphorically philosophical, Wu Cheng'en introduces the character of Sun Wukong. Wukong is perhaps the most powerful and the wisest character in fiction, rightfully self-proclaimed "Great Sage Equal of Heaven". Yet his journey of acquiring such immense power and intellect is rooted in his duty to his subjects on the Flower and Fruit Mountain. Everything that he did was to protect his subjects and to end heavenly discrimination against them. It is to be noted that Wukong immensely respected the Buddha, his wisdom honed by duty to the Buddha’s ideals.

From these texts, it can be concluded that both the Western Canon and the Great Books of the Eastern World agree the higher human strives for personal excellence and the collective good. This path of righteousness, as dubbed by Krishna, or the philosopher-king as dubbed by Plato, or the Higher Man as dubbed by Nietzsche, all strive to achieve the greater good, be it for oneself or the collective.

Self-perfection demands a master mentality—not selfish egoism, but a will so potent it radiates outward. It is by fully adopting the ‘master mentality’ rather than ‘master morality’. Becoming the yes-sayer, the doer, the optimist, the fated. But it is also not achieved by doing what is selfish just because one believes that God is dead and anything goes. Even though morals may differ in execution, the end goal should be that which benefits the collective. Every act of one aspiring towards perfectionism must be selfless, dedicated to the collective, and never to oneself. A perfect human would be deemed ideal in the eyes of the ruler and the ruled alike.

It is also not enough that one does what is required selflessly. One must do it consistently, with discipline and perspicacity for one's shortcomings. One must also act in the present and not indulge in thought. And when one does act, one must do it tour de force. To put it in Nietzsche's own words, you must completely devote yourself to your work, and that work will provide you with the meaning of life.

Lastly, have passion.

Let your meaning consume you in flames, and you will find fulfillment.