Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None is a book written during the 1880s by the German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche. Hard to categorise, the work is a treatise on philosophy, a masterly work of literature, in parts a collection of poetry and in others a parody of and amendment to the Bible. Consisting largely of speeches by the book's hero, prophet Zarathustra, the work's content extends across a mass of styles and subject matter. Nietzsche himself described the work as "the deepest ever written".
Reply to Tate
If you are keen to discuss the work, perhaps you could start with the beginning passages and give your impressions.
Book discussions are difficult to carry out in this forum. I suggest looking at other attempts to get a bearing on what you want to discuss. The difference between responding generally to a group of ideas and closely reading texts is large.
I have a couple of translations and I can't get through this book. I don't know that I would call it 'unreadable' as the critic Harold Bloom did, but I did find the work's grandiose parodic style tedious and unappealing. I think I got about 1/4 of the way through. I'd be interested to read other people's reactions to it and find out why they like it.
On Otherworldly, Thus Spoke Zarathrrusta, translated by Walter Kaufmann:I know these godlike men all too well: they want one to have faith in them, and doubt to be sin. All too well I also know which they have most faith. Verily, it is not in afterworlds and redemptive drops of blood, but in the body, that they too have most faith; and their body is to them their thing-in-itself. But a sick thing it is to them their thing-in-itself. But a sick thing it is to them, and gladly would they shed their skins. Therefore, they listen to the preachers of death and themselves preach afterworlds.
Listen rather, my brothers, to the voice of the healthy body; that is a more honest and pure voice: More honestly and purely speaks the healthy body that is perfect and perpendicular: and it speaks of the meaning of the earth.
I recently found it and haven't looked at it closely, but this contemporary translation seems to be pretty good: http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/LoserLit/zarathustra.pdf[/url]
But yes, he is difficult to read, intentionally so. It has something to do with his hatred of idle readers:
Of all that is written I love only that which one writes with his blood.
Write with blood, and you will experience that blood is spirit.
It is not easily possible to understand the blood of another: I hate the
reading idlers.
Whoever knows the reader will do nothing more for the reader. One
more century of readers and the spirit itself will stink.
That everyone is allowed to learn to read ruins not only writing in the
long run, but thinking too.
Once the spirit was God, then it became human and now it is even
becoming rabble.
Whoever writes in blood and proverbs does not want to be read, but to
be learned by heart.
[Zarathustra, "Reading and Writing"]
.
And something to do with hiding:
Everything that is profound loves the mask [Beyond Good and Evil, 40]
I can't access that website. Which translator is it?
Tate
That's odd. Translated by Adrian Del Caro, edited by Del Caro and Robert Pippin
I accessed the pdf without a problem, ignoring the warning triangle ( !) and the 'Not Secure'.
Some scrolling down, through the Intro and Further Reading, before you can dive into the book at p49/318 pdf pages.
Given that I've tried and failed to read this monster, I would follow any discussion with interest.
As @Paine pointed out: Quoting Paine
Book discussions are difficult to carry out in this forum.
Hi there - a suggestion for choice of translator.
Why not pick a passage in each of the online versions to compare.
Readability and pleasing aesthetics?
1. Thomas Common - https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1998/1998-h/1998-h.htm
When Zarathustra was thirty years old, he left his home and the lake of his home, and went into the mountains. There he enjoyed his spirit and solitude, and for ten years did not weary of it. But at last his heart changed,and rising one morning with the rosy dawn, he went before the sun, and spake thus unto it:
Thou great star! What would be thy happiness if thou hadst not those for whom thou shinest!
For ten years hast thou climbed hither unto my cave: thou wouldst have wearied of thy light and of the journey, had it not been for me, mine eagle, and my serpent.
But we awaited thee every morning, took from thee thine overflow and blessed thee for it.
Lo! I am weary of my wisdom, like the bee that hath gathered too much honey; I need hands outstretched to take it.
I would fain bestow and distribute, until the wise have once more become joyous in their folly, and the poor happy in their riches.
Therefore must I descend into the deep: as thou doest in the evening, when thou goest behind the sea, and givest light also to the nether-world, thou exuberant star!
Like thee must I GO DOWN, as men say, to whom I shall descend.
2. Adrian Del Caro - http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/LoserLit/zarathustra.pdf
?
When Zarathustra was thirty years old he left his home and the lake of
his home and went into the mountains. Here he enjoyed his spirit and
his solitude and for ten years he did not tire of it. But at last his heart
transformed, one morning he arose with the dawn, stepped before the
sun and spoke thus to it:
You great star! What would your happiness be if you had not those
for whom you shine?
For ten years you have come up here to my cave: you would have tired
of your light and of this route without me, my eagle and my snake.
But we awaited you every morning, took your overflow from you and
blessed you for it.
Behold! I am weary of my wisdom, like a bee that has gathered too
much honey. I need hands that reach out.
I want to bestow and distribute until the wise among human beings
have once again enjoyed their folly, and the poor once again their wealth.
For this I must descend into the depths, as you do evenings when you
go behind the sea and bring light even to the underworld, you super-rich
star!
Like you, I must go down? as the human beings say, to whom I want to
descend.
Like you, I must go down? as the human beings say, to whom I want to
descend.
In 2. there is a footnote for 'I must go down'.
Starts: 'German uses untergehen, literally to go under for the expression the sun goes down. Nietzsche throughout Zarathustra uses wordplay to signify that Zarathustras going under is a going over or transition, ubergehen ¨ , from human to superhuman, from man to overman...'
So far, I prefer 2. less archaic and flows better. Less blank spaces to jump over...
The translation recommended by @Fooloso4 :up:
I have a couple of translations and I can't get through this book. I don't know that I would call it 'unreadable' as the critic Harold Bloom did, but I did find the work's grandiose parodic style tedious and unappealing. I think I got about 1/4 of the way through. I'd be interested to read other people's reactions to it and find out why they like it.
I have similar problems with its readability. I've given all my copies away!
A book discussion might be helpful if well organised and roughly scheduled.
There is so much of it to get through - it's quite a project.
See Contents pp7-9 of http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/LoserLit/zarathustra.pdf
I've been looking at how it can be broken down into segments.
I could only find this:
https://www.litcharts.com/lit/thus-spoke-zarathustra/zarathustra-s-prologue *
But that's only a couple of pages at a time. It would take forever...
How many pages can a person chew through, in what interval of time,without experiencing indigestion?
It depends on the reader but for a discussion involving more than one...any suggestions for pacing?
* It might be seen as a bit of a cheat and not everyone approves of using secondary sources.
For various reasons. @Fooloso4 can reel them off!
However, if it gives newbies a heads-up, then all to the good...I think.
I agree that it is probably best not to refer to them in-discussion.
I've been guilty of that previously and it just muddies the waters. Terribly.
Also can make you lazy and not think for yourself!
I suggest looking at other attempts to get a bearing on what you want to discuss. The difference between responding generally to a group of ideas and closely reading texts is large.
Excellent advice!
I've had a look at other book/paper discussions.
The OP is important to set out the aims and the way forward.
Here is a pretty formal example:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3617/book-club-being-time-by-martin-heidegger/p1
and then there's this more laid back:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/922/sellars-empiricism-the-philosophy-of-mind/p1
So, @Tate - over to you.
How do you want to proceed?
I'd just like to take an appropriate chunk at a time and discuss, ask questions, cross reference, etc. I don't see a problem with using multiple translations.
You already posted the first chunk, so:. questions:
Why is he talking to the sun?
Why does he think the sun needs him, his eagle, and his serpent?
I'd just like to take an appropriate chunk at a time and discuss, ask questions, cross reference, etc. I don't see a problem with using multiple translations.
You already posted the first chunk, so:. questions:
I wasn't intending to take over. In fact, I'm not even a Nietzsche fan :yikes:
Not sure I will follow through. Just a few suggestions, as requested in OP.
Sorry I only posted part of: Z's Prologue 1 (p49 pdf) for reasons of comparison.
Didn't realise how much was left.
So bless me now, you quiet eye that can look upon even an all too great
happiness without envy!
Bless the cup that wants to flow over, such that water flows golden from
it and everywhere carries the reflection of your bliss!
Behold! This cup wants to become empty again, and Zarathustra wants
to become human again.
Thus began Zarathustras going under.
Wow. Right in there with the questions! I haven't read it properly, so haven't a clue.
(I've been out and about...not on here all the time, even if it seems like that :wink: )
No first impressions...?
I'm not sure about copy and pasting the whole book in chunks.
Probably copyright issues...
Perhaps just refer to bits of the chunks, meaningful to the reader?
It might be seen as a bit of a cheat and not everyone approves of using secondary sources.
For various reasons. Fooloso4 can reel them off!
To clarify, I do not think that using secondary sources is a cheat. They can be helpful. The problem, as I see it, is using only secondary sources. It is as if one were to read the tour guide without touring the places described.
It is not necessary, but depending on who wrote it, it might be helpful or not. I have not read Pippin's introduction but have read other things by him. I think he is a reliable source, which is not to say that his is the final word. I think you cited him in the Hegel discussion group.
I just took a quick look at his introduction to TSZ:
Nietzsche himself provides no preface or introduction, although the section on TSZ in
his late book, Ecce Homo, and especially its last section, Why I am a Destiny, are invaluable guides to what he might have been up to.
I see that in his recommendations for further reading, under contemporary commentaries he begins with:
Laurence Lamperts Nietzsches Teaching: An Interpretation of Thus Spoke Zarathustra (Yale
University Press,1986, establishes the need for a new teaching, the nature of the teaching, and the foundational role it plays in the history of philosophy. Lamperts Nietzsche and Modern Times: A Study of Bacon, Descartes, and Nietzsche (Yale University Press, 1993), much broader in scope, goes
further in the direction of specifying the ecological, earth-affirming properties of Nietzsches teaching via Zarathustra.
I have read and recommend both. (See, I am not against secondary sources) You might recognize his name from his commentaries on Plato.
My relationship to Nietzsche isn't entirely intellectual. I had nightmares the first time I read TSZ. Something about him crosses the boundary between conscious and unconscious for me.
When he starts talking about the sun's night journey, this is immediately pinged for me. The Egyptians posited a night journey of the sun through the belly of a snake.
You great star! What would your happiness be if you had not those for whom you shine?
For ten years you have come up here to my cave: you would have tired of your light and of this route without me, my eagle and my snake ...
Like you, I must go down as the human beings say, to whom I want to descend.
Some things here to note: the connection between sun and man, Z likening himself to the sun - bringing illumination to those for whom he shines, separating himself from and once again joining man, going up and going down.
Yes. But he's talking about a mutually dependent relationship between the source of life and light, and his own being, divided by high and low: the eagle and the snake.
No need to go into the symbolism super deeply, though. The point is: Zarathustra, the creator of an ancient religion, has withdrawn from the world, become full, and now wants to shine his light upon mankind. So he goes down the mountain.
Here he enjoyed his spirit andhis solitude and for ten years he did not tire of it. But at last his hearttransformed, one morning he arose with the dawn, stepped before the
sun and spoke thus to it:
You great star! What would your happiness be if you had not those
for whom you shine?
For ten years you have come up here to my cave: you would have tired
of your light and of this route without me, my eagle and my snake.
But we awaited you every morning, took your overflow from you and
blessed you for it.
When I read this, I wondered why he had first sought solitude...it seemed to me that he was like any other world-weary hermit and seeker of peace and enlightenment.
Then having had his fill, his heart moved again to find some purpose.
He sees the sun as having a sense of purpose; to bring meaning to him, his eagle and snake.
What would the sun do without them?
Probably just shine on...no matter.
Z wants to share light, like the sun, with those human beings he had left behind...
Let them be enlightened by him, a sage? and the sun, nature.
Behold! I am weary of my wisdom, like a bee that has gathered too
much honey. I need hands that reach out.
He wants to reach out and share with those whose hands reach out? The needy?
Or does he need to have human hands so that he can reach out? To give.
I didn't read that anywhere. What ancient religion?
He's also called Zoroaster. He's the founder of Zoroastrianism. According to N's sister, he had a peculiar relationship with Zarathustra since childhood.
The point is: Zarathustra, the creator of an ancient religion, has withdrawn from the world, become full, and now wants to shine his light upon mankind. So he goes down the mountain.
Why Zarathustra? Or perhaps the better question is, why the return of Zarathustra?
like any other world-weary hermit and seeker of peace and enlightenment.
He is, however, different than the hermit saint he meets. Both profess to love mankind, but the saint loves mankind "too much" and thus turns away from man to God.
Plato's I went down yesterday to the Piraeus..."
The symbolism of going from Athens (the light, "above") to the port (lowly commercialism).
The division.
So bless me now, you quiet eye that can look upon even an all too great happiness without envy!
Bless the cup that wants to flow over, such that water flows golden from it and everywhere carries the reflection of your bliss!
Z is praying to the Sun, his spiritual 'God'.
He wants nature's supernatural blessing so that he can be a 'disciple' and carry the word, in all its shining glory. Or something.
Behold! This cup wants to become empty again, and Zarathustra wants to become human again.
Thus began Zarathustras going under
Like the son/Sun of 'God', Jesus the man, he is part of a Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit ?
3 in One? Or One in Three?
Come down to Earth, to enlighten but is there also a devil to deal with?
This is intriguing me more than I thought it would.
I have read and recommend both. (See, I am not against secondary sources) You might recognize his name from his commentaries on Plato.
:smile:
BTW, I am not looking at secondary sources as I make my way through this.
I'm enjoying it as a newcomer. Like reading the Short Stories but I don't need to guess the author :wink:
I don't even want to know about the author.
This is a first for me.
Not looking things up.
I don't see where that question is coming from. The death of God is an historical event. It's not a doctrine Nietzsche is pushing.
An event the (good) news of which the people had either not heard or did not believe.
Quotations are from the Cambridge edition.
Could it be possible! This old saint in his woods has not yet heard the news that
God is dead! [Prologue 2, page 5]
When Zarathustra had spoken these words he looked again at the people and fell silent. There they stand, he said to his heart, they laugh, they do not understand me, I am not the mouth for these ears.
Must one first smash their ears so that they learn to hear with their eyes? Must one rattle like kettle drums and penitence preachers? Or do they believe only a stutterer? (Prologue 5, page 9)
The stutterer likely refers to Paul. The need to smash their ears suggests that they do not believe God is dead.
In the second section, we meet the famous saint. The two have crossed paths before. The theme of going up and coming down recurs. The saint has had his own travels:. He's gone into the forest to escape men because he loved them too well. Was he gay?
Now he only loves his perfect God.
"Then thou carriedst thine ashes into the mountains: wilt thou now carry thy fire into the valleys? Fearest thou not the incendiary's doom?
Yea, I recognise Zarathustra. Pure is his eye, and no loathing lurketh about his mouth. Goeth he not along like a dancer?
Altered is Zarathustra; a child hath Zarathustra become; an awakened one is Zarathustra: what wilt thou do in the land of the sleepers?
As in the sea hast thou lived in solitude, and it hath borne thee up. Alas, wilt thou now go ashore? Alas, wilt thou again drag thy body thyself?"
Zarathustra answered: "I love mankind."
?"Why," said the saint, "did I go into the forest and the desert? Was it not because I loved men far too well?
Now I love God: men, I do not love. Man is a thing too imperfect for me. Love to man would be fatal to me."
Ok. The saint might be a symbol for clergymen in general. Off to themselves, they aren't aware of what's been happening in the world, that is, that the Enlightenment has come and gone. God has become a fairy tale.
If you only refer to the Cambridge book pages, I have difficulty finding the quotes in the Cambridge pdf.
I'm using the pdf, so I've been referencing that.
He's gone into the forest to escape men because he loved them too well. Was he gay?
Zarathustra answered: I love mankind."
Why, asked the saint, did I go into the woods and the wilderness in the first place? Was it not because I loved mankind all too much?
Now I love God:human beings I do not love. Human beings are too
imperfect a thing for me. Love for human beings would kill me.
As the footnote indicates:
Ich liebe die Menschen means literally I love human beings."
If you only refer to the Cambridge book pages, I have difficulty finding the quotes in the Cambridge pdf.
Could we stick to one or the other; or do both?
The problem is different members use different translations.
Prologue 2, page 5
means the section of the prologue that is numbered 2, which is page 5 of the Cambridge translation.
The saint might be a symbol for clergymen in general.
More generally, those who by turning to something higher they call God, turn away from man. The saint's love/hatred of man means he wants nothing to do with the clergy or even the monastery.
2.
Zarathustra went down the mountain alone, no one meeting him. When he entered the forest, however, there suddenly stood before him an old man, who had left his holy cot to seek roots.
And thus spake the old man to Zarathustra:
No stranger to me is this wanderer: many years ago passed he by. Zarathustra he was called; but he hath altered.
Then thou carriedst thine ashes into the mountains: wilt thou now carry thy fire into the valleys? Fearest thou not the incendiarys doom?
Yea, I recognise Zarathustra. Pure is his eye, and no loathing lurketh about his mouth. Goeth he not along like a dancer?
Altered is Zarathustra; a child hath Zarathustra become; an awakened one is Zarathustra: what wilt thou do in the land of the sleepers?
As in the sea hast thou lived in solitude, and it hath borne thee up. Alas, wilt thou now go ashore? Alas, wilt thou again drag thy body thyself?
Zarathustra answered: I love mankind.
Why, said the saint, did I go into the forest and the desert? Was it not because I loved men far too well?
Now I love God: men, I do not love. Man is a thing too imperfect for me. Love to man would be fatal to me.
Zarathustra answered: What spake I of love! I am bringing gifts unto men.
Give them nothing, said the saint. Take rather part of their load, and carry it along with themthat will be most agreeable unto them: if only it be agreeable unto thee!
If, however, thou wilt give unto them, give them no more than an alms, and let them also beg for it!
No, replied Zarathustra, I give no alms. I am not poor enough for that.
The saint laughed at Zarathustra, and spake thus: Then see to it that they accept thy treasures! They are distrustful of anchorites, and do not believe that we come with gifts.
The fall of our footsteps ringeth too hollow through their streets. And just as at night, when they are in bed and hear a man abroad long before sunrise, so they ask themselves concerning us: Where goeth the thief?
Go not to men, but stay in the forest! Go rather to the animals! Why not be like mea bear amongst bears, a bird amongst birds?
And what doeth the saint in the forest? asked Zarathustra.
The saint answered: I make hymns and sing them; and in making hymns I laugh and weep and mumble: thus do I praise God.
With singing, weeping, laughing, and mumbling do I praise the God who is my God. But what dost thou bring us as a gift?
When Zarathustra had heard these words, he bowed to the saint and said: What should I have to give thee! Let me rather hurry hence lest I take aught away from thee!And thus they parted from one another, the old man and Zarathustra, laughing like schoolboys.
When Zarathustra was alone, however, he said to his heart: Could it be possible! This old saint in the forest hath not yet heard of it, that GOD IS DEAD!
God is dead means several different tbut related hings for Nietzsche.
I will mention one: the death of God on the cross. But unlike the "good news" of Christianity, the resurrection, there is only the "news" that God is dead. But this too is good news.
The Enlightenment did not advocate turning our back on mankind. It was a turning away from God to man
The point is, the Enlightenment was supposed to be the triumph of reason. Almost immediately, European culture turned against that via Romanticism.
In a way, the saint, by representing the darkness of superstition, is sympathetic to Darwinism, where humans are just animals. Materialism will eventually call into question whether Reason, so worshipped during the Enlightenment, is anything but an illusion.
As the footnote indicates:
Ich liebe die Menschen means literally I love human beings."
Interestingly it continues:
? Ich liebe die Menschen means literally I love human beings. Earlier translators ignored the
ecological framework in which Nietzsche wrote Zarathustra by using expressions like man. The prologue establishes a prevailing semantic field, a framework in which human beings, animals, nature and earth interact or should interact as never before.
Why, asked the saint, did I go into the woods and the wilderness in the first place? Was it not because I loved mankind all too much?
Now I love God: human beings I do not love. Human beings are too imperfect a thing for me. Love for human beings would kill me.
I interpret 'mankind' here as being things of the world; material objects and desire.
The saint rejected this, seeking spirituality - the 'higher' level.
Human beings are seen as 'imperfect' due to their physical needs and hunger for the 'lower'.
Reminds me of something along the lines of being in the world, but not of the world.
Love for material objects would kill his spirit.
The separation of body and mind; the physical and the spiritual.
But they are both required...
I interpret 'mankind' here as being things of the world; material objects and desire.
The saint rejected this, seeking spirituality - the 'higher' level.
Human beings are seen as 'imperfect' due to their physical needs and hunger for the 'lower'.
Reminds me of something along the lines of being in the world, but not of the world.
Love for material objects would kill his spirit.
That makes sense. Mankind is earthly. The Saint wants an ethereal perfection he represents as God. Z says he loves the earthly. He wants to be of the earth
This is the first time I've noticed this aspect of the saint. You can try to make Reason into a replacement for God. They're both eternal, and above the changing fates of earthly beings.
Zarathustra replied. Why did I speak of love? I bring mankind a gift.
Give them nothing, said the saint. Rather take something off them and help them to carry it that will do them the most good, if only it does you good
Thinking aloud.
Z asks the saint 'Why...?
Did he mean "When did I speak of, say anything about love?" - Love of material stuff?
Or is it short-hand for "Why do you think it's love I carry?" - In his heart?
Does this mean Z has no love for fellow human beings, even if he wants to return as one?
He only wants to be a Giver. In control as a master to a slave?
The saint seems more spiteful and selfish than spiritual.
To lessen the human burden ( material or spiritual) by helping them carry it?
How would that do anyone most good, to be dependent?
And why would Z want that kind of burden, when he wants to enlighten?
There is here a series of questions that begins almost as soon as they meet. The first question "why' question:
Why, asked the saint, did I go into the woods and the wilderness in the first place? Was it not because I loved mankind all too much?
Z replied:
Why did I speak of love? I bring mankind a gift.
Neither is asking the question to the other, for how would they know?
Because the saint loves mankind too much he turns away from man. He can't bear what man is. It seems as if what he loves is the ideal of man. Because he loves mankind Z turns toward man with a gift.
The saint does not want to give anything to man but rather wants something taken away. I think this refers to salvation from sin, the three metamorphoses of the spirit (page 16), and the burden of the camel.
The saint ask Z what he brings "us". Z says he has nothing to give the saint but leaves quickly before he takes something away (page 5). This might be a clue to the second part of the book's title:
A Book for All and None".
He also says:
They are mistrustful of hermits and do not believe that we come to give gifts.
To them our footsteps sound too lonely in the lanes. And if at night lying in their beds they hear a man walking outside, long before the sun rises, they probably ask themselves: where is the thief going? (4-5).
If Z were to tell the saint the news that God is dead would be to stea something from him. Why would Z give the gift of the overman to mankind but not to the saint? I think it has something to do with what he says right before he asks what Z has brought us:
I make songs and sing them, and when I make songs I laugh, weep and growl: thus I praise God.
With singing, weeping, laughing and growling I praise the god who is my god.
There is for the saint no burden to be carried or to be alleviated from. The god who is his god is not one Z wants to take away. To take it away would be to leave him empty.
There is here a series of questions that begins almost as soon as they meet.
[...]
Neither is asking the question to the other, for how would they know?
I hadn't thought of that. It seemed like a dialogue. So, is this internal self-talk - or a writer's technique to help the reader better know the characters?
The saint does not want to give anything to man but rather wants something taken away. I think this refers to salvation from sin, the three metamorphoses of the spirit (page 16), and the burden of the camel.
OK, you have the advantage of having read this before. I think this is a book which you can read over and over and still find something new or revealing. Quoting Tate
This is the first time I've noticed this aspect of the saint
The beauty of discussions like this; new ways of looking and discovering.
Thanks for starting the thread :up:
Z says he has nothing to give the saint but leaves quickly before he takes something away (page 5). This might be a clue to the second part of the book's title:
A Book for All and None".
What's the link between the 'clue' and the title?
To them our footsteps sound too lonely in the lanes
'Lonely in the lanes'. I like that.
Mankind as a general collective can be suspicious or scared to be separate.
We (the unroyal) mingle in the marketplace.
Not wanting to be alone along a narrow way; on a parallel single line as in a swimming pool.
And if at night lying in their beds they hear a man walking outside, long before the sun rises, they probably ask themselves: where is the thief going?
We cling to each other in our beds in darkness. No light shining. We can imagine dark deeds outside.
We build separate family homes for shelter and protection. We guard our property. The material.
If Z were to tell the saint the news that God is dead would be to steal something from him. Why would Z give the gift of the overman to mankind but not to the saint?
Yes, it would deny the saint his comfort blanket; his faith is his protection. Against what?
Men? The World? He wants his Garden of Eden.
Why would Z give the gift of the overman to mankind but not to the saint?
I'm still not exactly sure what 'the gift of the overman' is?
I make songs and sing them, and when I make songs I laugh, weep and growl: thus I praise God.
With singing, weeping, laughing and growling I praise the god who is my god.
This made me think of our 'Plato's Phaedo' discussion.
The repetition and singing as incantation; myths and magic.
Why the difference between the lines, even if it seems they are saying the same thing?
There is for the saint no burden to be carried or to be alleviated from. The god who is his god is not one Z wants to take away. To take it away would be to leave him empty.
Before someone's belief/faith is questioned, attacked or removed, there would need to be something to take its place. Our minds can't say empty forever...
I'm still not exactly sure what 'the gift of the overman' is?
OK, getting there.
Reading continues > Section 3
Cambridge pdf p51:And Zarathustra spoke thus to the people:
I teach you the overman.? Human being is something that must be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?
Footnote :
Ich lehre euch den Ubermenschen. Just as ¨ Mensch means human, human being, Ubermensch ¨means superhuman, which I render throughout as overman, though I use human being, mankind, people, and humanity to avoid the gendered and outmoded use of man. Two things are achieved by using this combination. First, using human being and other species-indicating expressions makes it clear that Nietzsche is concerned ecumenically with humans as a species, not merely with males. Secondly, expanding beyond the use of man puts humans in an ecological context; for Zarathustra to claim that the overman shall be the meaning of the earth is to argue for a new relationship between humans and nature, between humans and the earth. Overman is preferred to superhuman for two basic reasons; first, it preserves the word play Nietzsche intends with his constant references to going under and going over, and secondly, the comic book associations called to mind by superman and super-heroes generally tend to reflect negatively, and frivolously, on the term superhuman.
So, is this internal self-talk - or a writer's technique to help the reader better know the characters?
I take it to be a rhetorical device. When, for example, Z says: "Why did I speak of love? I bring mankind a gift." he is not simply asking a question but answering it.
The royal 'we'? Those 'above' in the spiritual realm. Or the saint and his natural companions.
Z says he brings mankind a gift. But there is a tension here because the saint distances himself from mankind. The saint says: "They are mistrustful of hermits and do not believe that we come to give gifts."
What Z has to teach is for all, but, as is the case with the saint, for none. Put differently, who does "us" refer to? Whose ears? If not for certain ears and no one can hear or understand what Nietzsche has come to teach then although addressed to all it is for none.
I'm still not exactly sure what 'the gift of the overman' is?
Good question. It should become clearer as you read on. As with many things in Nietzsche there is a reversal of Christian teachings. See, for example, 1 Corinthians 12 on the gifts of the holy spirit.
I'm still not exactly sure what 'the gift of the overman' is?
Amity
Good question. It should become clearer as you read on. As with many things in Nietzsche there is a reversal of Christian teachings. See, for example, 1 Corinthians 12 on the gifts of the holy spirit.
For present and future reference, to consider how this is reversed by Nietzsche:
7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,[a] and to still another the interpretation of tongues.[b] 11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.
Strange thing happened there. I didn't bold the last sentence.
It could be spooky or just that the next heading was in bolds:
I make songs and sing them, and when I make songs I laugh, weep and growl: thus I praise God.
With singing, weeping, laughing and growling I praise the god who is my god.
What I noticed here was the change from God to god.
The difference in context and circumstance; between time ('When') and person (''With)
1. 'God', the general God: The Big External Spirit in the Sky (Heaven). The Ideal.
The religious inspiration for the saint's creativity. 'When...' - He makes them with feeling, then sings in Faith. Hallelujah! Praise the Lord!
Singing as Incantation, like in a church. Invoking magic charms.
2. 'god', here. is his god. A more personal god.
The saint is human with a wide range of emotions, from joy to sadness, anger even? 'With....' - In the midst of 'suffering', he talks/prays directly to his particular god, special to him alone.
This personal relationship comforts him.
His Belief is his protection against the lower parts of him, his demons. Help me in my hour of need.
Without God, he would be vulnerable. That is why he praises God. He might also think that unless God receives gratitude, He will become angry and desert him.
There is for the saint no burden to be carried or to be alleviated from.
The burden of being human still remains, even if he might delude himself with magic charms.
The saint has Pride in being above others he looks down on.
Physical and Spiritual combined.
"Although it is acknowledged e.g., by Walter Kaufmann that Nietzsche later removed the figure of the saint from this triumvirate of human exemplars, what has been overlooked is the fact that his understanding of the saint itself underwent change.Footnote3 In his early account Nietzsche understood the saint as embodying the supreme achievement of a self-transcending feeling of oneness and identity with all living things, while in his later account he viewed the saint as a representative of an unhealthy, life-denying ascetic ideal. This shift, I contend, is due in large part to Nietzsche's development of an ethic of power as part of his turn against Schopenhauer's ethic of compassion, which needs to be seen in light of his ongoing effort to articulate and defend an adequate cosmodicy. My ultimate aim in this essay is to read the earlier Nietzsche against the later Nietzsche with the help of Dostoevsky's novelistic depiction of the saintly ideal and to suggest that when properly articulated the saintly ideal is able to provide a more adequate cosmodicy than that which is offered in Nietzsche's ethic of power. However, we must first begin by considering in more detail Nietzsche's earlier and later accounts of the saintly ideal." --David McPherson 2015
The idea is that the saint has given up on society because life among other humans is so painful. The reason loving mankind would kill him is that the suffering of humans is heartbreaking and even more so in the face of its pointlessness (lacking any teleology to give it meaning.)
Zarathustra's declaration that he loves mankind is a grand one in this light. He's prepared to face that heartbreak. In other words, he's prepared to look straight at events like the Holocaust, and say "yes" to life in spite of it.
In his early account Nietzsche understood the saint as embodying the supreme achievement of a self-transcending feeling of oneness and identity with all living things, while in his later account he viewed the saint as a representative of an unhealthy, life-denying ascetic ideal.
Oh, thanks for that, Tate. It looks like my interpretation chimes with the latter.
I should have known that there would be an early and a late Nietzsche.
Reminds me of my attempted reading and confusion with Wittgenstein.
"In Schopenhauer as Educator Nietzsche is centrally concerned with addressing the problem of cosmodicy, as indeed he is throughout much of his work. In other words, he is concerned with the question of how our life in the world is to be justified as worthwhile in light of the prevalent reality of suffering.Footnote4 That life should require justification is only the case if life presents itself to us as prima facie problematic with respect to its worthwhileness. By taking extensive suffering as the main problematic feature of life in light of which justification is required, Nietzsche is following Schopenhauer. For Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, this problem becomes especially acute for those good Europeans, like themselves, who no longer regard as tenable any religious interpretation of the world as purposefully ordered according to the goodness and governance of a god.Footnote5 As both realize, even if one no longer regards theodicy as viable, this still leaves the problem of cosmodicy (though neither uses this term). Indeed, theodicy is only the most historically dominant form in which the problem of cosmodicy has been addressed. Schopenhauer of course did not think that life could be justified given his view of the all-encompassing reality of suffering due to the insatiable and contradictory nature of the will and thus he advocated the resignation of the will to life. Nietzsche, for his part, sought to overcome Schopenhauer's pessimism (i.e., nihilism) through providing a perspective according to which one could affirm all of life, including suffering. Schopenhauer as Educator represents one of his most significant early attempts (along with The Birth of Tragedy) to overcome Schopenhauer's pessimism and provide a justification for human existence" --David McPherson 2015
What I noticed here was the change from God to god.
I take this to be about the difference between God as universal and the god who is his god. But I don't know that the saint sees them as different. It may be an expression of closeness, of unity.
The purpose of the incantations in the Phaedo is to charm away the fear of death. The saint is praising his god.
The author's own repetition of the expressed incantations makes us stop and think.
Just as Plato's does...to charm the readers to think again...
Or I'm just making up a load of garbage to fill in my time.
The déjà vu is strong :nerd:
I take this to be about the difference between God as universal and the god who is his god. But I don't know that the saint sees them as different. It may be an expression of closeness, of unity.
Still a comfort blanket, the removal of which would destroy him or his sense of (well)being.
Z is being kind, not wishing to leave him empty and vulnerable.
The saint might not see them as different but the author might.
And the readers are made aware by the clever changes.
In other words, he is concerned with the question of how our life in the world is to be justified as worthwhile in light of the prevalent reality of suffering.
With regard to the question of justification we should look back to Paul:
... they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. (Romans 3:24)
Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 5:1).
The claim is that we suffer because of sin, but Jesus freed us from sin.
In the Birth of Tragedy Nietzsche says:
... the existence of the world is justified only as an æsthetic phenomenon. (5)
This should be understood in light of his claim that one should make of the the self a work of art. See, for example, The Gay Science 107.
Reply to Tate
I am not sure about McPherson's contention that the treatment of the Saint was a function of changing views N had of the 'ethics of power.' The view of Christianity as a suicide pact was developed through earlier and later views as depicted in The Gay Science, which includes writings before and after TSZ. So the following statement regarding saints strikes me as applicable whether the agency of the figure was something that served a narrative or not:
The Gay Science, 150, Translated by W Kaufman, :On the critique of saints.- To have a virtue, must one really
wish to have it in its most brutal form-as the Christian saints
wished-and needed-it? They could endure life only by
thinking that the sight of their virtue would engender self-
contempt in anyone who saw them. But a virtue with that
effect I call brutal.
The Saint doesn't represent Christianity in general. For N, the Saint is a person who has experienced some sort of ego death and has blended with all life.
Early on when N was suggesting that humanity should be bent toward creating great human beings, the Saint was at the top of his list. That changed over time. He began to see the Saint as as one who abandons earthly life, so the taint of Christianity is on him, but he's still not representative of the whole religion.
As interesting as all this is, can I ask that the thread sticks to the title and OP, TSZ: Reading?
If you want to talk about N, possibly start another thread?
Reply to Amity
I think that references outside of the TSZ text throws light upon what is going on there. But I take your point that I am asking everyone to read all of Nietzsche to understand some part of it.
My question about: "Which passages argue that 'humanity should be bent toward creating great human beings?'" is still germane.in the text of TSZ. The text seems more focused upon how to survive difficult conditions.
My question about: "Which passages argue that 'humanity should be bent toward creating great human beings?'" is still germane.in the text of TSZ. The text seems more focused upon how to survive difficult conditions.
I think that references outside of the TSZ text throws light upon what is going on there.
Yes, I understand that.
I've been there and done that with other book discussions.
Trouble is when there are too many and people start arguing the toss.
But whatever...
Do what needs to be done for clarity :pray:
" In a remarkable passage from Schopenhauer as Educator, Nietzsche describes his understanding of the saint in the following terms:
"And so nature at last needs the saint, in whom the ego is completely melted away and whose life of suffering is no longer felt as his own life or is hardly so felt but as a profound feeling of oneness and identity with all living things: the saint in whom there appears that miracle of transformation which the game of becoming never hits upon, that final and supreme becoming-human after which all nature presses and urges for its redemption from itself. It is incontestable that we are all related and allied to the saint, just as we are related to the philosopher and artist; there are moments and as it were bright sparks of the fire of love in whose light we cease to understand the word I, there lies something beyond our being which at these moments moves across into it, and we are thus possessed of a heartfelt longing for bridges between here and there.Footnote1"
-- McPherson 2015
By the Geneology of Morals, his view of the Saint has changed. He now says:
"So far the most powerful human beings have still bowed worshipfully before the saint as the riddle of self-conquest and deliberate final renunciation. Why did they bow? In him and as it were behind the question mark of his fragile and miserable appearance they sensed the superior force that sought to test itself in such conquest, the strength of the will in which they recognized and honored their own strength and delight in dominion: they honored something in themselves when they honored the saint. Moreover, the sight of the saint awakened a suspicion in them: such an enormity of denial, of anti-nature will not have been desired for nothing, they said to and asked themselves. There may be a reason for it, some very great danger about which the ascetic, thanks to his secret comforters and visitors, might have inside information. In short, the powerful of the world learned a new fear before him; they sensed a new power, a strange, as yet unconquered enemy it was the will to power that made them stop before the saint.Footnote16" -GoM
As interesting as all this is, can I ask that the thread sticks to the title and OP, TSZ: Reading?
If you want to talk about N, possibly start another thread?
The Prologue to TSZ has been described as "thick." There are lot of ideas in there. This is just to explain why the saint declares that he's a "bear among bears." Nietzsche is referring to the spiritual stature of the saint, though this is not strictly a Christian spirituality.
Reply to Tate
How do you relate these commentaries to the clear rejection of Christian belief put forward by Nietzsche? Do you have a set of quotes by Nietzsche that supports these ideas?
How do you relate these commentaries to the clear rejection of Christian belief put forward by Nietzsche?
I think Nietzsche enjoyed the position of anthropologist. In that role, he was free to take whatever beliefs and values a society holds as mythology, which was in line with his epistemology. In this, he was the forerunner of people like Jung and Joseph Campbell, who sought to go beyond rejecting Christianity to placing it in a psycho-historical framework.
In other words, yes, he rejected Christianity. He condemned Christians. But then, he condemned just about everyone at some time or another.
The ideal of the saint is not strictly about Christianity. It's more in line with some kind of esoteric mysticism.
Reply to Tate
Yes, I see how the Genealogy of Morals quote ties into the 'ethics of power.'
But from where do you see the process being about 'producing great human beings?'
But from where do you see the process being about 'producing great human beings?'
That's early Nietzsche in Schopenhauer as Educator.
Per McPherson:
"According to Nietzsche in Schopenhauer as Educator, what is needed in order to justify our existence is to provide suffering with a higher purpose or meaning sufficient to make life worth living. However, doing so requires that human beings transcend their animality, since for animals as mere animals all suffering must remain senseless suffering without any higher significance.Footnote6 What is distinctive about being human is precisely the capacity to transcend our animality and turn the thorn of suffering against itself by providing it with a higher sense of significance.Footnote7 Above all, Nietzsche claims, this higher sense of significance is provided by those true human beings who are no longer animal: viz., the philosopher, the artist, and the saint.Footnote8 These three figures stand as the highest human exemplars precisely because of the ways in which they are able to utilize suffering for the sake of great achievements that go far beyond what is possible for non-human animals. In doing so they provide suffering with a higher significance as well as a perspective from which life in the world can be justified. Thus Nietzsche contends: It is the fundamental idea of culture, insofar as it sets for each one of us but one task: to promote the production of the philosopher, the artist and the saint within us and without us and thereby to work at the perfecting of nature.Footnote9 Likewise, he says: Mankind must work continually at the production of individual great men that and nothing else is its task. [ ] How can your life, the individual life, receive the highest value, the deepest significance? [ ] Certainly only by your living for the good of the rarest and most valuable exemplars.Footnote10"
The ideal of the saint is not strictly about Christianity. It's more in line with some kind of esoteric mysticism.
Thanks for the reference. What characterizes the saint is the absence of ego:
In him the ego has melted away ...(Part 5)
but I do not see the connection with esoteric mysticism.
There are some interesting comparisons with the saint is Z.
(Emphasis added):
So the first danger in whose shadow Schopenhauer lived wasisolation. (Part 3)
I can now give an answer to the question whether it be possible to approach the great ideal of Schopenhauer's man "by any ordinary activity of our own." In the first place, the new duties are certainly not those of a hermit; they imply rather a vastcommunity, held together not by external forms but by a fundamental idea, namely that of culture; though only so far as it can put a single task before each of usto bring the philosopher, the artist and the saint, within and without us, to the light, and to strive thereby for the completion of Nature. (Part 5)
The saint in Z identifies himself as a hermit. His duty is only to himself.There is no mention of artists or philosophers or culture. Perhaps what changed is Nietzsche's ideas about the value of the melting away of the ego. In the later works the self is of central importance.
Well, that collection of thoughts is at odds with Nietzsche saying the following about will as expressed by Schopenhauer:
The Gay Science, 127, Translated by W. Kaufman: Aftereffects of the most ancient religiosity. - Every thought·
less person supposes that will alone is effective; that willing is
something simple, a brute datum, underivable, and intelligible
by itself. He is convinced that when he does something-strike
something, for example-it is he that strikes, and that he did
strike because be willed it. He does not see any problem here;
the feeling of will seems sufficient to him not only for the
assumption of cause and effect but also for the faith that he
understands their relationship. He knows nothing of the mechanism
of what happened and of the hundredfold fine work that
needs to be done to bring about the strike, or of the incapacity
of the will in itself to do even the tiniest part of this work. The
will is for him a magically effective force; the faith in the will
as the cause of effects is the faith in magically effective forces.
Now man believed originally that wherever he saw something
happen, a will had to be at work in the background as a cause,
and a personal, willing being. Any notion of mechanics was
far from his mind. But since man believed, for immense periods
of time. only in persons (and not in substances, forces, things,
and so forth), the faith in cause and effect became for him the
basic faith that he applies wherever anything happens-and this
is what he still does instinctively: it is an atavism of the most
ancie11t origin.
The propositions, "no effect without a cause.'' "every effect
in tum a cause appears as generalizations of much more
limited propositions: "no effecting without wiling"; "one can
have an effect only on beings that will"; "no suffering of an
effect is ever pure and without consequences, but all suffering
consists of an agitation of the will" (toward action. resistance,
revenge, retribution). But in the pre-history of humanity both
sets.of propositions were identical: the former were not gen-
realizations of the latter, but the latter were commentaries on
the former.
, When Schoenbauer assumed that all that has being is only
a willing, he enthroned a primeval mythology. It seems that he
never even attempted an analysis of the will because, like
everybody else, he had faith in the simplicity and immediacy of
all willing-while willing is actually a mechanism. that is so
well-practiced that it all but escapes the observing eye.
Against him I posit these propositions: First, for will come
into being an idea of pleasure and displeasure is needed. Second, when a strong stimulus is experienced as pleasure or displeasure, this depends on the interpretation of the intellect
which, to be sure, generally does this work without rising to
our consciousness: one and the same stimulus can be interpreted as pleasure or displeasure. Third, it is only in intellectual
beings that pleasure, displeasure. and will are to be found; the
vast majority of organisms has nothing of the sort.
It has been noted by Kaufmann and others how this doesn't square with the claims about N's idea of the will to power.
Reply to Fooloso4
Right. By the time he writes TSZ, he no longer approves of the Saint's isolation. In TSZ, the Saint refers to both himself and Z as anchorites, which is a religious hermit. He says people don't trust anchorites, which is mentioned in GoM.
Z, of course, proceeds on down to the world of humans. From now on, I'll say "human" instead of "men" because I think it's clearer.
Reply to Tate
It relates because it undercuts the language of purpose regarding the production of great people in the other Schopenhauer quote.
In the general discussion surrounding how Nietzsche developed his views, his willingness to develop lines of thought that do not fit with each other seems to be something he was more comfortable with than his readers. When I read him, I hear the following challenge:
"Who gave you a promissory note that assures you that this all makes sense? Talk to Hegel, if that is your bag."
The Prologue to TSZ has been described as "thick." There are lot of ideas in there. This is just to explain why the saint declares that he's a "bear among bears." Nietzsche is referring to the spiritual stature of the saint, though this is not strictly a Christian spirituality.
If the Prologue is 'thick' with lots of ideas does that mean that once mastered, the rest of the book is easier to get through? A walk in the park :wink:
I agree it is worth spending as much time as necessary to understand the foundations.
Grateful for all your help.
I understood the 'bear' bit as pointing to a spirit of nature but isn't that what Z is about?
No, it's about overcoming that, right? :chin:
In the general discussion surrounding how Nietzsche developed his views, his willingness to develop lines of thought that do not fit with each other seems to be something he was more comfortable with than his readers. When I read him, I hear the following challenge:
"Who gave you a promissory note that assures you that this all makes sense? Talk to Hegel, if that is your bag."
I have a couple of translations and I can't get through this book. I don't know that I would call it 'unreadable' as the critic Harold Bloom did, but I did find the work's grandiose parodic style tedious and unappealing. I think I got about 1/4 of the way through. I'd be interested to read other people's reactions to it and find out why they like it.
Yeah. No one has actually read it cover to cover.
In juvenescence, I was taken in by a phrase on the first page, which in my translation was rendered "Hail, Great Star!", which I adopted as an occasional morning prayer.
But on revisiting it in my adultery I find a glowering self-righteous lunacy. The pretence that the sun needs Zarathustra, his eagle and his snake is nauseating.
I would be pleasantly surprised if this thread manages to reach the flies in the marketplace.
Hard to categorise, the work is a treatise on philosophy, a masterly work of literature, in parts a collection of poetry and in others a parody of and amendment to the Bible. Consisting largely of speeches by the book's hero, prophet Zarathustra, the work's content extends across a mass of styles and subject matter.
...how Nietzsche developed his views, his willingness to develop lines of thought that do not fit with each other seems to be something he was more comfortable with than his readers.
What Z has to teach is for all, but, as is the case with the saint, for none. Put differently, who does "us" refer to? Whose ears? If not for certain ears and no one can hear or understand what Nietzsche has come to teach then although addressed to all it is for none.
I would be pleasantly surprised if this thread manages to reach the flies in the marketplace.
I'm trying to work out how long it will take. I joined 2 days ago.
To read the book only: The Cambridge pdf starts at p49 and ends p312.
So far, I've reached Prologue 3, starting on p51. We are on p4 of the thread.
I've a feeling the others will up the pace fairly soon...
As already noted by @Paine 'book discussions are difficult to carry out in this forum.'
Although I've been on the point of giving up, even this early on, the other 3 main readers seem to have enough knowledge, experience and enthusiasm to see it through. Or at least help others who try.
Some might drop in and join at the relevant section...where others drop out...
The next section introduces the Superman. I'm sure everyone will have their own notion of what that is.
Recall that the exchange with the Saint sets up this introduction. The world is full of suffering. Humans are ever afflicted and the idea of God made it more bearable. God cared. God was testing us, or we were paying for sins, or it was the devil and God could make things right. We were caught up in a really important cosmic drama and it was worthwhile to stick it out and see how the novel ended.
Reply to Tate
Zarathustra spares the Saint from disillusion but tries to shake the community of men from the dream. The key element is the contempt that kept the dream alive:
TSZ, chapter 3, translated by W Kaufmann:
"Behold, I teach you the overman. The overman is the meaning of the earth! Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the meaning of the earth! I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do no believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! Poison-makers are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying and poisoned themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so let them go.
"Once the sin against God was the greatest sin; but God died, and these sinners died with him. To sin against the earth is now the most dreadful thing, and to esteem the entrails of the unknowable higher than the meaning of the earth.
"Once the soul looked contemptuously at the body, and then this contempt was the highest: she wanted the body meager, ghastly, and starved. Thus she hoped to escape it and the earth. Oh, this soul herself was still meager, ghastly, and starved: and cruelty was the lust of this soul. But you, too my brothers, tell me: what does your body proclaim of your soul? Is not your soul poverty and filth and wretched contentment?
The totality of the Christian God was toxic from the beginning of its reign. Now that it has lost its grip, we are not able to just pick up where we left off. The cruelty the soul has become accustomed to consuming through the centuries is still expecting its next meal. The appeal to something people lack is difficult to convey. The overman is an expectation of an unknown future that is supposed to replace the previous experience of certainty. Zarathustra tries the following:
TSZ, chapter 5, ibid: "They have something of which they are proud. What do they call that which makes them proud? Education they call it; it distinguishes them from goatherds. That is why they do not like to hear the word 'contempt' applied to them. Let me then address their pride. Let me speak to them of what is most contemptible: but that is the last man.
The next section introduces the Superman. I'm sure everyone will have their own notion of what that is.
The first proclamation of Z to the marketplace crowd (gathered to be entertained by a tightrope walker).
I teach you the overman..." ( note 3)
What on earth must he have looked or sounded like?
At the end of section 2, Z had spoken to his heart in amazement that the saint hadn't heard the news that "God is dead!"
Why would the saint have heard any news? And how would Z have, being isolated?
He received a message - an internal voice as a result of his meditations, or as a disciple of the Sun?
Now, Z brings the 'Good News' from up high, down to the people, evangelical style.
Note 3:
Cambridge pdf p51:Overman is preferred to superhuman for two basic reasons; first, it preserves the word play Nietzsche intends with his constant references to going under and going over, and secondly, the comic book associations called to mind by superman and super-heroes generally tend to reflect negatively, and frivolously, on the term superhuman.
What is the meaning of "God is Dead"?
An idea in the mind of Z? Or a feeling in his heart/soul?
What is the meaning of "God is Dead"?
An idea in the mind of Z? Or a feeling in his heart/soul?
Amity
Good question. I'm not really sure.
All of a sudden I heard the proclamation:
"The king is dead, long live the king!"
But this new 'king' is not a continuation of the previous.
Z is not an heir to the Christian kingdom and throne.
Is there a sense of one delusion being replaced by another...?
I have a dream.
I see Charlton Heston with his wild, white woolly hair and beard as Moses in the Ten Commandments!
That's exactly the right image because Zarathustra is handing them a set of values. These values are in opposition to the Christian other-worldly framework, and they're opposed to the moral vacuum left by the death of God.
What exactly these new values are is a little foggy. It has something to do with love of life, but as a goal for humanity, there's a distinct dark side to it. If we erase the distinction between soul (psyche) and body, the quest for the Ubermensch implies eugenics.
Companions the creative one seeks and not corpses, nor herds and believers. Fellow creators the creative one seeks, who will write new values on new tablets.
What exactly these new values are is a little foggy.
That is because his task is not to create new values but to create creators. This is touched upon in his first speech, "On the Three Metamorphoses" (16), and developed later with regard to the eternal return.
"The old tablets of morality are broken, and the new ones are only half-written. With these words Alexander Tille ended his book, Von Darwin bis Nietzsche (1895), ushering in a process, which still continues, of making use of Nietzsche both to diagnose a modern condition of godlessness, and to find something to fill the gap left by God's death. It would probably be true to say that the new tablets of the law are still only half written, if they are even that much written (and perhaps postmodernism means accepting, even celebrating that fact), but in the first decades of the twentieth century interpretations of Nietzsche combined with the new science of eugenics to form a potent attempt to formulate a new code of morals. Why this combination came about, how it was articulated, and what were its results, are the subjects of this chapter." -- Nietzsche and Eugenics: Breeding Superman
Based on what you have cited this is not about Nietzsche, it is about a questionable interpretation of Nietzsche that attempts to combine Nietzsche and eugenics.
If we erase the distinction between soul (psyche) and body, the quest for the Ubermensch implies eugenics.
The question of the soul or psyche or self and body does not imply eugenics. Making use of Nietzsche in support of eugenics is not the same as the claiming that what he says implies eugenics. Even the title "Breeding Superman" indicates how far such efforts are from Nietzsche.
The book as described by the publisher:
Breeding Superman looks at several of the leading Nietzscheans and eugenicists, and challenges the long-cherished belief that British intellectuals were fundamentally uninterested in race. The result is a study of radical ideas which are conventionally written out of histories of the politics and culture of the period.
Based on what you have cited this is not about Nietzsche, it is about a questionable interpretation of Nietzsche that attempts to combine Nietzsche and eugenics.
I think this is where I agree with postmodernism. At the point that eugenics became wildly popular in the UK and the US, it was obvious to people that Nietzsche supported it.
Since eugenics is anathema to us, specifically because of Nazism, we don't think of Nietzsche as favoring it.
Every generation is going to have its own Nietzsche. If you don't accept this, that's fine. Just take the point that if the prevailing interpretation of Nietzsche in the early 20th Century pointed to eugenics, then you can't say that's nonsense. You can say it's wrong, but not nonsense. Let's reserve the word "nonsense" for that which truly makes no sense, ok?
I think it is important to note that Nietzsche's ideas are potentially explosive.
I think it is important to note that Nietzsche's ideas are potentially explosive.
I think we all know that any 'Big Thinker' in philosophy, theology or science can have 'Dangerous Ideas'.
Especially those which challenge the status quo.
There is always the potential for radical explosion with interpretations twisted to suit any agenda.
What exactly these new values are is a little foggy. It has something to do with love of life, but as a goal for humanity, there's a distinct dark side to it.
'Something to do with...'
Is not good enough.
We need to look at what the text says as we move along.
Isn't that the whole point of this thread?
To look closely at what is and is not said without jumping to conclusions...
And how it is said. What do we enjoy about the writing?
Since eugenics is anathema to us, specifically because of Nazism, we don't think of Nietzsche as favoring it.
It has nothing to do with our views on eugenics. It has to do with what Nietzsche said.
What does Nietzsche say about eugenics?
What does Nietzsche say about breeding?
What does Nietzsche say about the relationship between the overman and breeding?
The term "breeding" has different senses. "Good breeding" for example has nothing to do with "selective breeding".
The second essay of the Genealogy begins:
To breed an animal that is entitled to make promisessurely that is the essence of the paradoxical task nature has set itself where human beings are concerned? Isn't that the real problem of human beings?
This has nothing to do with selectively breeding human beings that are entitled to make promises. It is a task that nature has set itself. Animals breed. We are all the result of breeding.
How does eugenics follow from erasing the distinction between soul (psyche) and body?
Just take the point that if the prevailing interpretation of Nietzsche in the early 20th Century pointed to eugenics, then you can't say that's nonsense.
You work hard to find an easy way out. It was you, not the prevailing interpretation of Nietzsche, that made this claim. Even it this was the prevailing interpretation it does not mean it is one you should propound. You have given no evidence in support of your claim.
You work hard to find an easy way out. It was you, not the prevailing interpretation of Nietzsche, that made this claim
There is actually quite a bit of academic work examining the connection between Nietzsche and eugenics. He spoke of breeding experiments. He suggested that women should be valued according to their contribution to creating great humans.
I'm not all that interested in proving it to you when all you have to do is look it up. :grin:
I'm on the verge of leaving this pop stand anyways.
You work hard to find an easy way out. It was you, not the prevailing interpretation of Nietzsche, that made this claim
Fooloso4
There is actually quite a bit of academic work examining the connection between Nietzsche and eugenics.
You make my point. There is also quite a bit on Nietzsche and Nazism. That does not mean he supported such thinking and practices or that the work on it supports the connection.
I think it is important to note that Nietzsche's ideas are potentially explosive.
Especially when they are profoundly misunderstood.
I suggest reading Genealogy of Morals, Essay 3, section 26 for a thorough thrashing of antisemites, nationalists, and the supposed 'scientific' gas emitted by many a fraud.
Where in Nietzsche's text do you see him "erase the distinction between soul (psyche) and body?" It may reveal the source of some misunderstanding.
There is also quite a bit on Nietzsche and Nazism. That does not mean he supported such thinking and practices or that the work on it supports the connection.
But it does mean people feel the need to address it, with, I assume, something beyond "No, that's a misreading."
I tend to think this sort of thing is interesting, just as other commonly misunderstood phenomena are. To "save them appearances", you want not just to point out that the moon is in fact much smaller than a star, but also explain why it appears to be so much larger.
So it is with texts. In some cases a misreading can be explained by knowing deception. In some cases, it's a failure of the intellectual conscience. But in some of those cases and in others, a widespread misreading indicates something there in the text that people are hanging their interpretation on. So it might be understandable, even when it's wrong, or at least not as perspicuous as other readings. People took Wittgenstein for a behaviorist, and that's probably wrong, but it's not like there's *nothing* in his writing to suggest that.
But it does mean people feel the need to address it ...
I agree. Some associate Nietzsche with Nazism. It is important to uncover how this came about. It is through Nietzsche's sister Elisabeth who became his guardian and literary executor.
I had a professor in grad school who claimed this. I argued against this in class. His attitude toward me after this was, to say the least, less than friendly.
The irony is, those who praise Nietzsche are pushing against his spirit.
Nietzsche is a conundrum. In some ways he's amazing. But then he says things I can't forgive, like that a large portion of the human population is superfluous. It's a bad idea to try to white wash that. It can be taken as food for thought, though. Nietzsche is himself something to overcome.
Maybe the thread you want to anchor is not a reading discussion of a particular book but a list of what you reject from his text. Then you can own your interpretation instead of referring to secondhand sources to represent what you don't like. And we the readers can decide if the bad things are as you describe or something else.
But it does mean people feel the need to address it, with, I assume, something beyond "No, that's a misreading."
[...]
In some cases a misreading can be explained by knowing deception. In some cases, it's a failure of the intellectual conscience. But in some of those cases and in others, a widespread misreading indicates something there in the text that people are hanging their interpretation on. So it might be understandable, even when it's wrong, or at least not as perspicuous as other readings.
The 'something there in the text' as the source of different interpretations and critical appraisal is key.
That is one reason for a close and careful reading, as with any philosophical text.
A book discussion is not just for those who love the author for whatever reason.
I tend to think this sort of thing is interesting, just as other commonly misunderstood phenomena are. To "save them appearances", you want not just to point out that the moon is in fact much smaller than a star, but also explain why it appears to be so much larger.
What interests me is how a carefully constructed OP might briefly acknowledge the controversial aspects. This might just help any would-be readers or re-readers to understand the general before delving into the particulars of the book in question.
Is there a best way or an attitude to adopt when reading a book by Nietzsche?
One such question and a few responses, here:
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/8026/how-does-one-read-nietzsche-properly
As a beginner but still knowing the complexity of the work, my approach was to make it as simple and clear as possible. For the first time, no hunting around for secondary sources even if they help.
I wanted to keep my mind clutter-free and free from prejudice. However, that is difficult...
Some advice from the link:
1. Read every word, with particular attention to unfamiliar vocabulary. Nietzsche, as a philologist, was particular about his lexical and syntactic choice, I'm sure. Performing a close read of the text will benefit you enormously, particularly when you understand the then contemporary, historical meaning of his words and phrases, for which you will need the aid of footnotes and research. Taking his words merely for granted in the modern definitions and ideations proves inaccurate. Of course, what you are reading is a translation, which I am not qualified to evaluate, but a keen attention to every word, sentence, and paragraph will fully bring you into the experience, and set you up for the next "step".
2. Note the stylistic, punctuational choices. You will notice that many texts use italicized, parenthesized, or hyphenated text, which to me at any rate, presents a thrilling experience for reading. And this makes sense, given Nietzsche's own opinions on how to write effectively, and I believe such mechanics were present in his original drafts. Feel the words, the phrasing, the tempo, the gravitas, of what you are reading, as it will convey far more emotion and impression than a mere clinical clean read. It should 'disturb' you and make you think, which prepares you for the next "step".
3.Read the text again, but at a different time. If you have this luxury, try reading the text after some time off, or perhaps in a different mood (one that is still conducive to reading, though). You may be surprised, offended, or confused by what he writes, which dangerously lends to the temptation of dismissing his ideas and style. Understand that he may be speaking ironically, craftily, or earnestly, but all with intent and purpose. He is not an easily philosopher to understand!
4. Ruminate! This is the most important step, and is not necessarily the last. Think, think, think, about what you have read, and consider the implications of his writing. Nietzsche was extraordinarily productive and crams so much in so little space. Think, at any point in time in your reading or even just in the everyday, about what could have led him to write what you read, and that exactly, and not something else. Think about particular paragraphs, sentences, even words, but without forgetting an understanding of the overarching themes of his message.
As for his aphorisms, given their pithy and brief nature, you need to think long and hard about them, and not cave to the temptation of appropriating them out of context. Furthermore, it is beneficial to seek the expertise of Nietzsche researchers, who can better provide the context and clarity of how and why he wrote with an affinity for aphorisms. I could write on and on, but I hope this is a good modus operandi for approaching his fantastic works. Best of luck!
unenlightenedAugust 29, 2022 at 08:11#7341600 likes
Moses descended from the mountain with tablets of stone written by God.
Zarathustra descended from the mountain with nothing, because God is dead.
Do you think that Nietzsche wants us to believe Zarathustra more than Moses?
Any honest regard of He of the Great Moustache must accept that his ideas, rightly or wrongly, are used by nazis and icels and other nasty folk.
It just will not do to ignore the nasty interpretation, or to pretend that it is not to be found in the corpus.
Indeed. Where in a forum book discussion should this kind of thing be raised?
My preference would be in the OP.
Then, bearing that in mind, the participants could proceed with a close and careful reading.
Or not...
Zarathustra spares the Saint from disillusion but tries to shake the community of men from the dream. The key element is the contempt that kept the dream alive:
Any honest regard of He of the Great Moustache must accept that his ideas, rightly or wrongly, are used by nazis and icels and other nasty folk.
It just will not do to ignore the nasty interpretation, or to pretend that it is not to be found in the corpus.
Yes, and we should not ignore that Plato said that if we are to be just then men and women should exercise naked together, but this should not lead to sex, for breeding is controlled by the overlords. Descartes told us to only will what we know so as not to sin. The result being that we all would be bunch of do nothing philosophers. Rawls said that if there is to be justice we must be ignorant. Add your favorite philosopher. Stir, do not shake.
unenlightenedAugust 29, 2022 at 13:56#7342370 likes
Funny and true, but Nietzsche did not say we should all be individuals, quite the opposite. He says that most are not capable of being individuals and are properly followers.
There are at least two important themes as issue:
Modern Liberalism, aka Individualism
Jesus' claim that he is the way.
Good question. Nothing. Of any substance. But. Let me see...
OK, I'm thinking, thinking...
Stand well back, here comes a mind dump ( must be catching).
After 10yrs of solitude, the guy was fed-up:
1. Of the time spent alone
2. Of talking to himself, the Sun and his pets.
3. Of his diet and general circumstances.
4. No newspapers.
He had had his fill of solar enlightenment. His cup runneth over.
4. He had weird dreams as a result of sensory deprivation and consuming hallucinogenic herbs.
5. He received the message that 'God is Dead' (? auditory hallucination)
6. He was hit by a bolt of lightning/sunshine/brilliance ( vision)
7. His brain sparked with the glorious realisation that he was the new God. ''God is dead, long live the g/God''. ( delusional)
8. He wanted to Gift the Message, Big Idea and Superior All Greatness with others below him.
9. He wanted to save them, the sinners so as to have Equal Companions Along The Way.
10. Imparting His Word, Wisdom and Light >>>mini-Zs and gods (creators).
11. The First Rule of Fight Club is You Talk About Fight Club.*
11. More people in the club >>>It's a Wonderful World For All.
12. He wanted to go down on them...
* but if the rabble ears could, would not listen or understand The Tongues...then all Hell...
Something like that.
Oh, plus a New Set of Values... suitably vague.
So, only those Special Members would be stroked.
Time to return to the Text!
unenlightenedAugust 29, 2022 at 18:57#7342650 likes
Reply to Amity And you think that is Nietzsche's message to the world?
And you think that is Nietzsche's message to the world?
Another good question.
This is supposed to be philo fiction, right?
Kinda gets confusing. But I'm veering to...Maybe, aye. Maybe no.
I've spilled my beans. Over to you. What do you think?
I haven't read enough of Z or N, as you should have gathered by now.
I don't know.
All I know is I'd like to get on with reading and discussing the text. Anyone else still up for that?
In line with Nietzsche's play of opposites, something lost and something found.
Zarathustra wants to become human again.
(3)
This is elaborated upon later:
Indeed, humans gave themselves all of their good and evil. Indeed, they did not take it, they did not find it, it did not fall to them as a voice from heaven.
Humans first placed values into things, in order to preserve themselves they first created meaning for things, a human meaning!
That is why they call themselves human, that is: the esteemer.
Esteeming is creating: hear me, you creators! Esteeming itself is the treasure and jewel of all esteemed things.
I have come to the conclusion that not even the thread starter is really up for reading the whole of the book. Indeed, how realistic is that? The Prologue alone is proving a challenge...
Many of the responses are not invested in finding something for themselves in the text. The discussion has become a parade where the ideas need to be pissed upon from the balconies.
I really do not know. It seems like a fundamental kind of question though. Zarathustra is a somewhat mythical ancient founder of a religion, into whose mouth Nietzsche is putting these words. On the face of it, there can be no more reason to believe these words than the words of any other religious leader.
Rather less, because they are 'really' Nietzsche's words, and we know he is somewhat a trickster and obscurantist.
In line with Nietzsche's play of opposites, something lost and something found.
Thanks! This at least makes sense in context; God is dead, but humans are the creators of value, and the creation of values has value. And from that, he can allow himself 'the reevaluation of all values'. And so can we. And the basis on which we are to do that is is that we must ...
Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try;
No hell below us,
Above us only sky.
The Gospel of John.
So, having established a definite equivocation on the reliability of Zarathustra, my next question is , how can we reevaluate our values? But I think I should not expect an answer yet. My questions may seem premature, but they are only premature if you think they need to be answered immediately, before we confront the text; I propose them rather as ways to approach the text.
I really do not know. It seems like a fundamental kind of question though. Zarathustra is a somewhat mythical ancient founder of a religion, into whose mouth Nietzsche is putting these words.
Thank you for pointing out what should have been an initial question for me.
The title of the book.
Why 'Thus Spake Zarathustra'?
I don't know that N is putting words into the prophet and founder of Zoroastrianism.
Why did he choose it? What inspired him to write it in this way?
I found this but have no idea as to its veracity. There are probably better places to go:
Zarathustra of Nietzsche, the Imaginary Savior by Thomson Dablemond | Feb 21, 2022 :The idea of Zarathustra of Nietzsche goes back to Nietzsche in the first years of his stay in Basel. We find clues in the notes dating from 1871 and 1872. But, for the fundamental conception of the work, Nietzsche himself indicates the time of a holiday in the Engadine in August 1881, where he came, during a walk through the forest, on the edge of Lake Silvaplana, like the first flash of Zarathustras thought, the idea of the eternal return. [ ].
Thus spoke Zarathustra [... ] is a philosophical poem by Friedrich Nietzsche, published between 1883 and 1885.
The whole of the book presents a progression from speech to speech which seems instead to indicate that these speeches represent each time a stage in the doctrine of Zarathustra, which would mark the translation by the past simple, Thus spake Zarathustra.
Zarathustra is the Avestan name of Zoroaster, prophet, and founder of Zoroastrianism, the ancient Persian religion. In German, it keeps this old form. Nietzsche chose it because he was the first to teach the moral doctrine of the two principles of good and evil......
Nietzsche himself presented this book as a 5th Gospel, he wants to make it the equivalent of the poems of Goethe, Dante Alighieri, and the texts of Luther. Thus Spoke Zarathustra is thus both a long poem and a work of reflection on a new promise for the future of man.
But it is also a parody. Zarathustra, retiring for ten years in the mountains and one day feeling the need to share his wisdom, recalls the stay of Christ in the desert, and certain passages of the fourth book are reminiscent of the Last Supper. Religious or esoteric symbols are also very numerous. Finally, one cannot help thinking of Francis of Assisi, a model of friendship between men and animals.
Your questions have made me look and think again :sparkle:
I am now more interested in following 'The Speeches' after I get through this interminable slog...
...my next question is , how can we reevaluate our values?
Even by reading something that is out of our usual habit ( like Z).
Being of an open and questioning mind.
To get over ourselves.
From the speech: On the Way of the Creator
Cambridge pdf p93:You must want to burn yourself up in your own flame: how could you become new if you did not first become ashes
Engaging in philosophical discussions?
How many people actually want to burn themselves?
Perhaps it needs others to light the spark...but then not to pour petrol over the flames?
A clean, steady burn.
But I think I should not expect an answer yet. My questions may seem premature, but they are only premature if you think they need to be answered immediately, before we confront the text; I propose them rather as ways to approach the text.
Are you joining in a 'confrontation' of the text?
Other than suggesting questions to keep in mind, how do you tackle the prose?
Sentence by sentence? Word by word?
Recognising key elements you are keen to explore...?
Or do we need to examine what values we prioritise...good use of time, energy...to reach a sufficient depth of understanding? Whatever that might be...
A close reading is fine and even desirable... but how much time have we to devote in a forum discussion?
having established a definite equivocation on the reliability of Zarathustra,
The saint says:
This wanderer is no stranger to me: many years ago he passed by here. Zarathustra he was called; but he is transformed.
The ancient prophet of good and evil, who overturned the religion of his time, has a new teaching, beyond good and evil. Nietzsche, that old philologist, might have been aware that the name has as its root the word for camel. In Z's first speech, "On the Three Metamorphoses", the spirit first becomes a camel.
A closer look at Zoroastrianism is likely to reveal other connections.
This wanderer is no stranger to me: many years ago he passed by here. Zarathustra he was called; but he is transformed.
The ancient prophet of good and evil, who overturned the religion of his time, has a new teaching, beyond good and evil.
Well, I didn't even see that when I passed it by!
I simply thought he was talking about the Nietzsche character...
So, N has gone beyond the original prophet?
Hey, you guys can continue on at whatever speed you like. I'm reading an essay about the eternal return, so I'll be doing my own thing. Thanks for your generous participation.
So, is it time to say "Enough is Enough!"?
Or perhaps just get through the Prologue???
I can understand people not wanting to continue.
This takes a huge chunk out of anybody's time when they have other priorities.
I think undertaking a close reading of the whole book is not feasible in a TPF discussion.
Perhaps just pick out important parts?
TBH, I am not strongly motivated and using the laptop has caused bits and pieces of me to complain.
I'm fine with leaving it here, as far as TPF is concerned.
That question cuts across a number of themes that don't resolve into a single interpretation.
In the Divine Songs of Zarathustra, the language of the prophet being a gift is deeply established. An example from a verse:
ibid from link.:Come, Lord, with loving Vohu Man' to us,
And bring the long-enduring gifts of Truth,
As promised, Mazda, in thy Words sublime;
Grant to Zar'thrusta joy of Inner Life,
And to us all as well, O Ahura,
That we may overcome the hate of foes.
One natural question to ask is where these gifts are coming from. The 'transcendent creator' is strenuously objected to by N, as a concept, in many places. One of the clearest examples comes right after he introduced the phrase 'death of god' in The Gay Science:
109, ibid from link.:Let us beware.- Let us beware of thinking that the world is
a living being. Where should it expand? On what should it
feed? How could it grow and multiply? We have some notion
of the nature of the organic; and we should not reinterpret the
exceedingly derivative. ]ate, rare, accidental, that we perceive
only on the crust of .the earth a11d make of it something essen·
tial, universal, arid eternal. which is what those people do who
call the universe an organism. This nauseates me. Let us
even beware of believing that the universe is a machine: it is
certainly not constructed for one purpose, and calling it a
"machine" does it far too much honor.
Let us beware of positing generally and everywhere anything
as elegant as the cyclical movements of our neighboring stars;
even a glance into the Milky Way raises doubts whether there
are not far coarser and more contradictory movements there,
as well as stars with eternally linear paths, etc. The astral order
in which we live is an exception, this order and the relative
duration that depends on it have again made possible an excep-
tion of exceptions: the formation of the organic. The total char·
acter oE the world, however, is in all eternity chaos-in the
sense not of a lack of necessity but of a lack of order, arrange-
ment, form. beauty, wisdom, and whatever other names there
are for our aesthetic anthropomorphisms. Judged from the
point of view of our reason. unsuccessful attempts are by all
odds the _rule, the exceptions are not the secret aim, and the
whole musical box repeats eternally its tune 2 which may never
be called a melody-and ultimately even the phrase uunsuccess-
ful attempt" is too anthropomorphic. and reproachful. But how
could we reproach or praise the universe? Let us beware of at-
tributing to it heartlessness and unreason or their opposites: it is
neither perfect nor beautifu\, nor noble, nor does it wish to be-
come any of these things; it does not by any means strive to imitate
man. None of our aesthetic and moral judgments apply to it. Nor
does it have any instinct for self-preservation or any other
instinct; and it does not observe any laws either. Let us beware
of saying that there are laws in nature. There are only necessi-
ties: there is nobody who commands. nobody who obeys,
nobody who trespasses. Once you know that there are no pur-
poses, you also know that there is no accident; for it is only
beside a world of purposes that the word accident has mean-
ing. Let us beware of saying that death is opposed to life. The
living is merely a type of what is dead, and a very rare type.
Let us beware of thinking that the world eternally creates
new things. There are no eternally enduring substances, matter
is as much of an error as the God of the Eleatics. But when
shall we ever be done with our caution and care? When will
all these shadows ·of God cease to darken our minds?t When
will we complete our de-deification of nature? When may we
begin to naturalize" humanity in terms of a pure. newly dis-
covered, newly redeemed nature?'
So, whatever attracted N to personifying Zarathustra wasn't for the sake of championing a competing metaphysic. My reading of the choice is that, despite trying to retrieve a Greek spirit not poisoned by Christianity, N did not think the effort would topple the edifice of Christian Platonism.
I am not sure how the above dynamic plays out in the messages by Zarathustra in TSZ as coming from outside the community, but the role of 'nature' is now the least understood thing. Nature is neither a machine (ala Newton) or a living being. We are further from distinguishing soul and body than our friends in the past. In this regard, it is interesting to consider the arguments of Plotinus against the 'gnostics' (as he called a number of groups he objected to). I can imagine Nietzsche agreeing with Plotinus that it is arrogant to say the world is naturally evil. But Nietzsche would accept that a struggle is underway, and man is at the center of it. And that sort of knocks at the back door of many syncretic themes where different mythological scenes were considered. Which comes around to this odd reference to matters Zoroaster:
This is the total number of the demons: 365
They worked together to complete, part by part, the psychical and the material body.
There are even more of them in charge of other passions
That I didnt tell you about.
If you want to know about them
You will find the information in the Book of Zoroaster.
Reply to Amity
I am willing to keep reading and respond to interesting observations.
Let's see how many other people want something from the discussion.
I think unenlightened has brought a good dish to the potluck.
Reply to Paine
Your excellent and substantive response here I will need to take time to read.
Wonderful writing with appropriate and helpful linking,
I am learning so much more than I ever anticipated. :sparkle:
I am willing to keep reading and respond to interesting observations.
Let's see how many other people want something from the discussion.
I think unenlightened has brought a good dish to the potluck.
Absolutely.
The questions of @unenlightened stopped me in my tracks, return and think again. The discussion progressed from there. I edited earlier posts to include him and apologised for my lapse. I didn't mean to exclude others from the conversation.
I hope others are reading along and join in whenever they wish!
I started off not caring all that much about N...this discussion has changed that.
It's a thread for everyone. No leader required, apparently! :smile:
So, whatever attracted N to personifying Zarathustra wasn't for the sake of championing a competing metaphysic. My reading of the choice is that, despite trying to retrieve a Greek spirit not poisoned by Christianity, N did not think the effort would topple the edifice of Christian Platonism.
That seems right. Our view of ancient Greece was already infected with the Christianity that overtook the Romans. Freud went back to the Greeks, and claimed not to have read Nietzsche, (but that latter is not really believable). But where Freud was diagnosing the sickness of the Western psyche, Nietzsche was attempting the cure.
To read TSZ seriously is to subject oneself to a psychological treatment, rather than to analyse and consider some philosophical system. The clown destroys the dancer - and Nietzsche made dancing central to life. Musically, think Wagner, the romantic on steroids. Who is the clown? Perhaps the one who mistakes the treatment for a way of life.
Just because 3 is the magic number of religion and psychology, I'll add in Robert Graves (of I, Claudius fame) who came a little later again, and went back even further to a reconstructed Goddess religion, and a matriarchal social psychology. But that is for another thread to look at.
So, N has gone beyond the original prophet?
Amity
In the Divine Songs of Zarathustra, the language of the prophet being a gift is deeply established. An example from a verse:
I read some of the book linked (searching for your verse). A truly fascinating insight into translation.
A few Intro Notes (p8 of pdf):
1. The Gathas must be judged by themselves and in the light of their own contents.
5. It is the thought of the Gathas which is truly profound.
[...]
As I advance in years and in knowledge of life, I find deeper and deeper meaning in each verse.
"Veil after veil will lift - but there must be veil upon veil behind."
Re:
1. I have tried to do that with Z but have failed; such is the complexity of the work. So much so, that here I am reading Divine Songs by Zarathustra, the original.
5. So, it is the thought or Big Idea of N which is truly profound; not easily uncovered in the text itself.
Layered veils indeed.
That question cuts across a number of themes that don't resolve into a single interpretation.
Ever felt like a fly caught in a spider's web?
From the link, I found a verse starting " Him shall I strive to turn to us with songs...
[...] Songs of Devotion shall we offer Him"(pdf p301).
Similar to Z's saint and his gift of songs praising God and god.
And what does the saint do in the woods? asked Zarathustra.
The saint answered: I make songs and sing them, and when I make
songs I laugh, weep and growl: thus I praise God.
With singing, weeping, laughing and growling I praise the god who is
my god. But tell me, what do you bring us as a gift?
And how does Z respond?
When Zarathustra had heard these words he took his leave of the saint
and spoke: What would I have to give you! But let me leave quickly before
I take something from you! And so they parted, the oldster and the
man, laughing like two boys laugh.
No songs for the saint.
But what will Nietzsche sing to us...? What will Zarathustra sing to the lower crowds...?
And will we/they dance to the tune we/they hear or think we/they hear?
Will we/they part laughing... like two boys?
Tell me how do 2 boys laugh, and at what, who?
To read TSZ seriously is to subject oneself to a psychological treatment, rather than to analyse and consider some philosophical system.
Both seem pretty ominous.
But both concern words and their curious ways...
What do you mean by a 'psychological treatment'?
Something like CBT ?
Or Reading Therapy, Bibliotherapy - to change the way we think and behave?
Analysis still involved.
As to a 'philosophical system'. Hmm... :chin:
I suppose some would call Z a philosophical masterpiece...a hidden and creative system, perhaps?
The most popular way the Overman is interpreted by contemporary Nietzsche fans ...
Who are these "Nietzsche fans"? I do not think that Nietzsche scholarship has become a popularity contest. Or is it that rigorous scholarship is not the most popular way?
Perhaps this just shows how out of touch I am with the "most popular way" of "contemporary Nietzsche fans" but I think a reading of TSZ should be based on the text, not speculation on about beings "exceedingly intelligent and technologically sophisticated", unless a reading of TSZ supports this idea.
Do you think an interpretation should be grounded in and supported by the text or do you think that this is not what an interpretation is about?
Do you think it might be useful as a discussion structure?
Amity
He raises several important issues which are worth discussing.
And in a certain order:
...However, we must appreciate Nietzche on his own terms: that his philosophy was clad in parable was consistent with his own proclaimed values.
In Thus Spake Zarathustra, Nietzche fashioned his own, personal new mythology and cosmology (here, myth is meant not as a lie but as a narrative that produces meaning in life), using the creative tools that he proposes people should use in their philosophical projects. In this way, he was just being authentic.
His masterpiece is as much a work of philosophy as it is a piece of art that carries within it a cosmos, a worldview with its own aesthetic sensibilities.
[...]
The Overman
Here is perhaps one of the most misinterpreted ideas in the Nietzchean wisdom tradition. The Overman (sometimes translated as Superman, in German Ubermansch) is an artist-philosopher, a self-creator who makes his own life and meaning. In a naturalist, evolving cosmos empty of Gods and of inherent meaning, mortals need an ideal to pull them forward and to build meaning with. Hence, Zoroaster teaches that man is a rope between the ape and the Overman, who then embodies our destiny and whatever narratives we build around the Overman are our self-chosen guiding visions for becoming and for the future.
So, we are allowed to create our own interpretation of what Nietzsche means?
It's time to return to the text.
I've been away too long...
The most popular way the Overman is interpreted by contemporary Nietzsche fans is post human , particularly the post human god.
Tate, I didn't even click on the link. Who cares about the most popular interpretation?
Have you done your own yet?
I think not. You left this discussion you started as 'leader', remember? It had barely begun.
The post-human element might be important to consider at some point.
Where is it mentioned in Z?
Reply to Amity
As Nietzsche would probably say to J Peterson if he was around:
Neitzsche, Ecce Homo, Why I Write Such Excellent Books:With this feeling of distance how could I even wish to be read by the "modern men that I know! My triumph is just the opposite of what Schopenhauers wasI say "Non legor non legar
What do you mean by a 'psychological treatment'?
Something like CBT ?
More old-fashioned. I'm thinking something like an initiation ceremony, or what used to be called a 'happening' in my mis-spent youth. Take the aphorism for example; not an argument, or a definition, or anything familiar to a scholar, but closer to a mantra or a koan; something to fill one's head with to block habitual thoughts.
I could say that the book is visionary, and the secret to the interpretation of dreams is this: Everything in the dream is you.
The difficulty is always the same difficulty; to escape the Christian mindset that infects Christians, atheists, Buddhists, scientists, and Nietzsche fan-boys alike. We always tend to understand the text in terms of our culture, rather than our culture in terms of the text - we are always looking to explain to each other - to understand rather than over-stand.
No one wants to be killed by clowns, but that is what is happening right now, before our very eyes.
To read TSZ seriously is to subject oneself to a psychological treatment, rather than to analyse and consider some philosophical system. The clown destroys the dancer - and Nietzsche made dancing central to life.
I enjoyed the imagery but didn't know what you meant. It always amazes me how the/my brain seems to go blind and not give equal attention to all of the words. Why is that? Necessity or Pickiness?
Questions now arise: How did N make dancing central to life? What kind or form of dancing? To what tune? And why would any 'clown' want to destroy the 'dancer'? Who does the clown represent?
Where can this be found in the text?
I could say that the book is visionary, and the secret to the interpretation of dreams is this: Everything in the dream is you.
Yes, I think this is right. It has the feel of a dream as both source and continuation.
To interpret this, to discover or uncover N's Big Idea, is to enter Z's world.
Almost a baptism by immersion.
Take the aphorism for example; not an argument, or a definition, or anything familiar to a scholar, but closer to a mantra or a koan; something to fill one's head with to block habitual thoughts.
So, reading as meditation. Giving whole attention to the text.
I wondered whereabouts in Z, there was mention of a clown, I hit search and found one.
This from the 4th and Final Part: 'On the Higher Man'.
Cambridge pdf 285-6:
Lift up your hearts, my brothers, high! higher! And dont forget your legs either! Lift up your legs as well, you good dancers, and better still: stand on your heads too!
Even in happiness there are heavy creatures, there are born ponderipedes. Quaintly they struggle, like an elephant struggling to stand on its head.
But it is better to be foolish with happiness than foolish with unhappiness, better to dance ponderously than to walk lamely. So learn this wisdom from me: even the worst thing has two good reverse sides
even the worst thing has good legs for dancing: so learn from me, you higher men, to stand yourselves on your right legs!
So unlearn moping and all rabble sadness! Oh how sad even todays rabble clowns seem to me! But this today is of the rabble.
'ponderipedes' - :lol:
Are serious readers of TSZ then 'wonderipedes'? :chin: :nerd:
We always tend to understand the text in terms of our culture, rather than our culture in terms of the text - we are always looking to explain to each other - to understand rather than over-stand.
Again, you turn my thoughts around. It is inevitable that as individuals our thoughts or values are part of our culture. Our minds are colored or stained by that.
However, if we try to understand something or someone else, there is a need to get over ourselves.
Go beyond what we think we know for sure...to examine values or what is worthwhile.
Reading a text can help us question the very culture which has helped us to grow as weeds or flowers.
We can get bogged down with our need to be understood or to understand. To justify by reason.
Understand - interesting elements of the compound word, figuratively and literally, starting here: Quoting Etymonline
Old English understandan "to comprehend, grasp the idea of, receive from a word or words or from a sign the idea it is intended to convey; to view in a certain way," probably literally "stand in the midst of," from under + standan "to stand" (see stand (v.)).
If this is the meaning, the under is not the usual word meaning "beneath," but from Old English under, from PIE *nter- "between, among" (source also of Sanskrit antar "among, between," Latin inter "between, among," Greek entera "intestines;" see inter-). Related: Understood; understanding.
I thought you had invented a neologism! Imagine my surprise at:
"to stand over or beside," from Old English oferstandan; see over- + stand (v.). In modern Jamaican patois it is used for understand as a better description of the relationship of the person to the information or idea.
So, what we are looking for is to relate better both to TSZ and Nietzsche...yes?
Between or among ourselves.
No one wants to be killed by clowns, but that is what is happening right now, before our very eyes.
OK. I can't help but think of current state of UK politics...an overturn of previous values...getting murkier and deadlier by the day. I could go on, but I won't.
unenlightenedSeptember 01, 2022 at 10:27#7349710 likes
So, what we are looking for is to relate better both to TSZ and Nietzsche...yes?
Between or among ourselves.
The traveller needs to read the map, to get where they are going if they are lost, and when they get there, they have no more use for the map. What I am saying, (and all I am saying, because I'm unenlightened not Zarathustra) is that there is nothing here to understand in the sense of there being a resting place even as a distant goal. I cannot and should not help anyone to understand what has been deliberately obscured. Stop thinking that anyone enlightened, unenlightened, Zarathustra, Nietzsche, Jesus, Hitler, L Ron Hubbard, or David Attenborough is the overman with the answers. Dance, die, return.
(nor even this Nobel laureate):
I can't feel you anymore
I can't even touch the books you've read
Every time I crawl past your door
I been wishin' I was somebody else instead
Down the highway, down the tracks
Down the road to ecstasy
I followed you beneath the stars
Hounded by your memory
And all your ragin' glory
I been double-crossed now
For the very last time and now I'm finally free
I kissed goodbye the howling beast
On the borderline which separated you from me
You'll never know the hurt I suffered
Nor the pain I rise above
And I'll never know the same about you
Your holiness or your kind of love
And it makes me feel so sorry
Idiot wind
Blowing through the buttons of our coats
Blowing through the letters that we wrote
Idiot wind
Blowing through the dust upon our shelves
We're idiots, babe
It's a wonder we can even feed ourselves
Stop thinking that anyone enlightened, unenlightened, Zarathustra, Nietzsche, Jesus, Hitler, L Ron Hubbard, or David Attenborough is the overman with the answers.
Are you talking to me?
An all-knowing 'overman' has never been, and never will be, that to which I adhere.
I don't think that any single philosopher has all the answers. How could they?
Here, we see a dabbing, dabbling or dappling of light and shade as we read and reflect...
A few pay more attention, going beyond.
To bring depth without darkness.
Dancers, creative and informative.
Aware and attuned.
It's why I hang around, even when I want to leave.
And might still yet...
unenlightenedSeptember 01, 2022 at 13:49#7350280 likes
To anyone who cares to listen, but more I'm withdrawing somewhat from talking to you, with that dangerous enticing "we". Time for me to be quiet and watch the exegesis of others.
No songs for the saint.
But what will Nietzsche sing to us...? What will Zarathustra sing to the lower crowds...?
And will we/they dance to the tune we/they hear or think we/they hear?
Will we/they part laughing... like two boys?
Tell me how do 2 boys laugh, and at what, who?
I think the chapter, On The Afterworldly, addresses those questions:
Thus Spoke Zarathustra, translated by Walter Kaufman: Drunken joy it is for the sufferer to look away from his suffering and to lose himself. Drunken joy and loss of self the world once seemed to me. This world, eternally imperfect, the image of an eternal contradiction, an imperfect image--a drunken joy for its imperfect creator: thus the world once seemed to me.
Thus I too once cast my delusion beyond man, like all the afterworldly. Beyond man indeed?
Alas, my brothers, this god whom I created was man-made and madness, like all gods! Man he was, and only a poor specimen of man and ego: out of my own ashes and fire this ghost came to me, and verily, it did not come to me from beyond. What happened, my brothers? I overcame myself, the sufferer; I carried my own ashes to the mountains; I invented a brighter flame for myself. And behold, then this ghost fled from me. Now it would be suffering for me and agony for the recovered to believe in such ghosts: now it would be suffering for me and humiliation. Thus I speak to the afterworldly.
The youthful quality shared between the Saint and Zarathustra is different from the image of the Child which has just been presented as the final metamorphosis of the Spirit. As a parodic echo of Paul, Z says it is time to put away childish things. The echo of Paul is also heard in the invoking of "This world" as the equivalent of the "tis Kosmos' which Paul expects to pass away.
But we know from other passages that the Overman derives his identity not from his lineage, his racial or national background, but from his self-chosen destiny. The identity of the Overman is anchored in the future, not in the past, which is why so many transhumanists identify with Nietzschean philosophy and why Nietzschean ideas feature prominently in so much of our science fiction.
In chapter 56, The Old and New Tables, Zoroaster calls for a new atheistic nobility that must rise to oppose the theistic populace and rulers. He is referring to our ongoing evolution from ape to Superman
This overlooks Nietzsche's rejection of 'natural' selection as a mechanical process as described by Darwin. It also does not appreciate that our generation cannot know the identity of future creators The overman is not a target but a process that is either underway or not. The rejection of deity as an escape from the world is not the start of the process but a phase of it.
I prefer Philip K Dick for my science fiction.
Also, he misspells 'Nietzschean' (a defect I corrected while quoting him).
I cannot and should not help anyone to understand what has been deliberately obscured.
I have from time to time thought about this.
Z comes down from the mountain. There is a political aspect to Nietzsche's work.* TSZ is, as the subtitle indicates, "a book for all and none". Herein lies the tension.
When I came to mankind for the first time, I committed the hermits folly, the great folly: I situated myself in the market place.
And when I spoke to all, I spoke to none. But by evening my companions were tightrope walkers, and corpses, and I myself almost a corpse.
But with the new morning a new truth came to me; then I learned to say: What do the market place and the rabble and the rabble noise and long rabble ears matter to me!
You higher men, learn this from me: in the market place no one believes in higher men. And if you want to speak there, well then! But the rabble blinks we are all equal. (232)
When speaking in the marketplace he spoke to all and none. But elsewhere he speaks to others:
You creators, you higher men! One is pregnant only with ones own child.
...
Unlearn this for, you creators; your virtue itself wants that you do nothing for and in order and because. You should plug your ears against these false little words. (236)
Creators create for the sake of creating, not for the sake of the people, but people benefit from what is created.
But whoever would be a firstling should see to it that he does not also become a lastling! (237)
Does he speak to us? And if so, where? One place is the the section "On Scholars".
For this is the truth: I have moved out of the house of the scholars, and I slammed the door on my way out. Too long my soul sat hungry at their table; unlike them, I am not trained to approach knowledge as if cracking nuts.(98)
We are not creators. We scholars are nut crackers, trying to crack TSZ.
They are skilled, they have clever fingers; why would my simplicity want to be near their multiplicity? Their fingers know how to do all manner of threading and knotting and weaving, and thus they knit the stockings of the spirit!
As interpreters of TSZ we pull at the threads and weave together what is found in the text. But as with the rabble:
For human beings are not equal: thus speaks justice. And what I want, they would not be permitted to want! (99)
Z faults scholars for being equalizers. They do not create. All is grist for their mill. But it need not be that way for us. We can recognize and try to make clear to ourselves and to others what is great. We can attend to books without making the mistake of assuming that wisdom and knowledge of life can be found in books.
And if we are able to crack some nuts and tie some things together ought we to keep that secret?
*
REAL PHILOSOPHERS, HOWEVER, ARE COMMANDERS AND LAW-GIVERS; they say: "Thus SHALL it be!" They determine first the Whither and the Why of mankind, and thereby set aside the previous labour of all philosophical workers, and all subjugators of the past--they grasp at the future with a creative hand, and whatever is and was, becomes for them thereby a means, an instrument, and a hammer. Their "knowing" is CREATING, their creating is a law-giving, their will to truth is--WILL TO POWER. --Are there at present such philosophers? Have there ever been such philosophers? MUST there not be such philosophers some day? . . . (BGE, 211)
Another popular view, one I like, is that the Overman, or Over-human, as some scholars call it, is a person who has the characteristics of the saint, the ego has melted away, there's a sense of oneness with all life, but earthly life has not been abandoned.
Rather all of life is greeted with a "yes".
How does this person make sense of the Holocaust? Surely not as something that's acceptable. Something that's overwhelmingly painful, though. Accepting life even though it hurts.
Another popular view, one I like, is that the Overman, or Over-human, as some scholars call it, is a person who has the characteristics of the saint, the ego has melted away, there's a sense of oneness with all life, but earthly life has not been abandoned. Rather all of life is greeted with a "yes".
How does this person make sense of the Holocaust? Surely not as something that's acceptable. Something that's overwhelmingly painful, though. Accepting life even though it hurts.
This strikes me a narrow reading of Nietzsche , missing precisely what is most subversive about him. The ego for Nietzsche is the product of a play of tensions among drives. This differential, conflictual relation of the drives is irreducible, the necessary basis of creativity and becoming, and not something to be overcome. What is to be overcome is any concept of sainthood, unification of opposites, or any other ascetic ideal.
The Overmans affirmation of life is not an affirmation of the truth of life as the real, an acceptance of the burden of what presents itself. This is nihilism and negation masquerading as affirmation. The yes is a transmutation and dislocation.
Like the Nazi interpretation, there is a basis for it in Nietzsche's writings, the Over-human and the concept of the eternal return are closely linked.
The Overmans affirmation of life is not an affirmation of the truth of life as the real
And yet another version of the Over-human is one who is capable of self-subversion: in other words, one who can overcome old rules and habits in order to grow into something new.
I would say tentatively the Overman is what we get after we have successfully achieved the transvaluation of all values , so that we eliminate all notions of the higher man. This includes any ideal that depends on a notion of progress toward truth or goodness or oneness.
I'm continuing this reading on my own. Before continuing, this is a pretty good review of popular takes on the Overhuman as it related to the eternal return:
"Relation To The Eternal Recurrence
"The Übermensch shares a place of prominence in Thus Spoke Zarathustra with another of Nietzsche's key concepts: the eternal recurrence of the same. Over the course of the drama, the latter waxes as the former wanes. Several interpretations for this fact have been offered.
"Laurence Lampert suggests that the eternal recurrence replaces the Übermensch as the object of serious aspiration. This is in part due to the fact that even the Übermensch can appear like an other-worldly hope. The Übermensch lies in the future no historical figures have ever been Übermenschen and so still represents a sort of eschatological redemption in some future time.
"Stanley Rosen, on the other hand, suggests that the doctrine of eternal return is an esoteric ruse meant to save the concept of the Übermensch from the charge of Idealism. Rather than positing an as-yet unexperienced perfection, Nietzsche would be the prophet of something that has occurred an infinite number of times in the past.
"Others maintain that willing the eternal recurrence of the same is a necessary step if the Übermensch is to create new values, untainted by the spirit of gravity or asceticism. Values involve a rank-ordering of things, and so are inseparable from approval and disapproval; yet it was dissatisfaction that prompted men to seek refuge in other-worldliness and embrace other-worldly values. Therefore, it could seem that the Übermensch, in being devoted to any values at all, would necessarily fail to create values that did not share some bit of asceticism. Willing the eternal recurrence is presented as accepting the existence of the low while still recognizing it as the low, and thus as overcoming the spirit of gravity or asceticism.
"Still others suggest that one must have the strength of the Übermensch in order to will the eternal recurrence of the same; that is, only the Übermensch will have the strength to fully accept all of his past life, including his failures and misdeeds, and to truly will their eternal return. This action nearly kills Zarathustra, for example, and most human beings cannot avoid other-worldliness because they really are sick, not because of any choice they made." --here
I actually like the last one best. The Ubermensch is like Kierkegaard's Knight of Faith: he has the grace to accept himself and the world as it is.
I think that what both Lampert and Rosen are getting at is that the expectation of the Übermensch sounds messianic.
In line with this I would argue that a) this can be regarded as another of Nietzsche's inversions of Christianity, and b) it is consistent with the eternal return in so far as a messianic figure is a recurring theme.
One way to give meaning to life is to condemn some aspects of the present and claim that something better is coming.
This is Christian eschatology. It's Marxism. It's any kind of progressivism. The painful parts of the present gain meaning in that they're part of a bridge to a better world.
For me, the Holocaust is an all purpose symbol of the pain of life. I think one of the advantages of a divine source of purpose is that even if you don't understand why God would allow the Holocaust, through faith, you trust that there's a reason.
When we try to prop it up in our own, we don't have that luxury. The question is: does the Over-human work on any level to help with this?
One way to give meaning to life is to condemn some aspects of the present and claim that something better is coming.
This is Christian eschatology. It's Marxism. It's any kind of progressivism. The painful parts of the present gain meaning in that they're part of a bridge to a better world.
So, you threaten to leave, come back, then claim to leave officially, then come back. You tell me you will not discuss anything with me, then respond to me.
I win? Does that mean you will take your ball and go home?
Why have you made this contentious and personal? Are you not able to engage in disagreement over a text without becoming petulant?
If you feel defeated it is only because you have defeated yourself.
See what Nietzsche says about one's best and worst enemies. You are your own worst enemy. It need not be that way. Zarathustra asks if you are up to the task.
For me, the Holocaust is an all purpose symbol of the pain of life. I think one of the advantages of a divine source of purpose is that even if you don't understand why God would allow the Holocaust, through faith, you trust that there's a reason.
When we try to prop it up in our own, we don't have that luxury. The question is: does the Over-human work on any level to help with this?
The text I read says that no such help will be given toward that end. The writing seems to go to some effort to welcome the absence of such assurances. Zarathustra takes away from the community of men what he left intact for the Saint.
For myself, the celebration of war and struggle in Nietzsche's writings is hard to listen to on this side of the Shoah. I have no interest in washing his hands of the responsibility he bears for his rhetoric. It would be interesting to pour some blood into his cup in Hades and see what he says after all that has happened.
There is more than that to consider in his ideas. Your statement: "When we try to prop it up in our own, we don't have that luxury" is exquisitely Nietzschean. If "you" are not the overman, there is none.
For myself, the celebration of war and struggle in Nietzsche's writings is hard to listen to on this side of the Shoah. I have no interest in washing his hands of the responsibility he bears for his rhetoric.
I think his rhetoric is unfortunate, but a large part of the danger lies in taking what he says out of its philosophical context.
Heraclitus "the obscure", one of Nietzsche's spiritual progenitors, said:
War is father of all, king of all (Fragment B53)
This is echoed in Nietzsche's will to power. It is not simply a matter of man against man, it is the way of all of nature, all of life.
We should also look at what he says about one's best and worst enemies, struggle, contest, and conflict. It is not simply.
Reply to Fooloso4
I was thinking of Nietzsche's idea of our present science as something that was available but problematic as a vehicle of certain knowledge. So, the natural was not presented as outside of the approach of established disciplines but not included either as a final word.
So, it is not clear whether the doubt about science is to be understood as a rejection of all that it produces or something else. In view of the fact that Nietzsche introduces a competing "science" not based upon a refutation of the other kind, but on the question of completeness, it is difficult to say what that is or could be.
I am more than a little uncertain, however, if such a dive into primary texts will interest the Forum.
That is an uncertainty that I confront every time I start and continue to put time and effort into a thread based on a primary text. There are always more readers than there are members who participate.
I think his rhetoric is unfortunate, but a large part of the danger lies in taking what he says out of its philosophical context.
C J Jung says, sometimes we need to adopt the principle of enantiodromia on interpreting his writings.
In that case, war should be translated to peace, overman to underman or underdog etc. Will to power is very likely had been modified from original Will to Life by either Niezsche's sister (by request from the authority for her financial gains) or some other authority to justify the political situation later in the country after his death.
I ignore all these negative, controversial and blurry parts of his writings, and only focus on the positive, energetic, existential and metaphorical parts which reads refreshingly genius and powerful.
Comments (248)
It's easy to access.
This is a Wikipedia introduction:
Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None is a book written during the 1880s by the German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche. Hard to categorise, the work is a treatise on philosophy, a masterly work of literature, in parts a collection of poetry and in others a parody of and amendment to the Bible. Consisting largely of speeches by the book's hero, prophet Zarathustra, the work's content extends across a mass of styles and subject matter. Nietzsche himself described the work as "the deepest ever written".
If you are keen to discuss the work, perhaps you could start with the beginning passages and give your impressions.
Book discussions are difficult to carry out in this forum. I suggest looking at other attempts to get a bearing on what you want to discuss. The difference between responding generally to a group of ideas and closely reading texts is large.
I like it because it calls out what I too reject.:
I recently found it and haven't looked at it closely, but this contemporary translation seems to be pretty good: http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/LoserLit/zarathustra.pdf[/url]
But yes, he is difficult to read, intentionally so. It has something to do with his hatred of idle readers:
.
And something to do with hiding:
I like what he says about the State in this one.
I can't access that website. Which translator is it?
Wa ha ha haaaa!
That's odd. Translated by Adrian Del Caro, edited by Del Caro and Robert Pippin
Is that the translator you prefer?
I accessed the pdf without a problem, ignoring the warning triangle ( !) and the 'Not Secure'.
Some scrolling down, through the Intro and Further Reading, before you can dive into the book at p49/318 pdf pages.
Given that I've tried and failed to read this monster, I would follow any discussion with interest.
As @Paine pointed out:
Quoting Paine
Is it necessary to read the Intro first?
All the best :cool:
Hi there - a suggestion for choice of translator.
Why not pick a passage in each of the online versions to compare.
Readability and pleasing aesthetics?
1. Thomas Common - https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1998/1998-h/1998-h.htm
When Zarathustra was thirty years old, he left his home and the lake of his home, and went into the mountains. There he enjoyed his spirit and solitude, and for ten years did not weary of it. But at last his heart changed,and rising one morning with the rosy dawn, he went before the sun, and spake thus unto it:
Thou great star! What would be thy happiness if thou hadst not those for whom thou shinest!
For ten years hast thou climbed hither unto my cave: thou wouldst have wearied of thy light and of the journey, had it not been for me, mine eagle, and my serpent.
But we awaited thee every morning, took from thee thine overflow and blessed thee for it.
Lo! I am weary of my wisdom, like the bee that hath gathered too much honey; I need hands outstretched to take it.
I would fain bestow and distribute, until the wise have once more become joyous in their folly, and the poor happy in their riches.
Therefore must I descend into the deep: as thou doest in the evening, when thou goest behind the sea, and givest light also to the nether-world, thou exuberant star!
Like thee must I GO DOWN, as men say, to whom I shall descend.
2. Adrian Del Caro - http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/LoserLit/zarathustra.pdf
?
When Zarathustra was thirty years old he left his home and the lake of
his home and went into the mountains. Here he enjoyed his spirit and
his solitude and for ten years he did not tire of it. But at last his heart
transformed, one morning he arose with the dawn, stepped before the
sun and spoke thus to it:
You great star! What would your happiness be if you had not those
for whom you shine?
For ten years you have come up here to my cave: you would have tired
of your light and of this route without me, my eagle and my snake.
But we awaited you every morning, took your overflow from you and
blessed you for it.
Behold! I am weary of my wisdom, like a bee that has gathered too
much honey. I need hands that reach out.
I want to bestow and distribute until the wise among human beings
have once again enjoyed their folly, and the poor once again their wealth.
For this I must descend into the depths, as you do evenings when you
go behind the sea and bring light even to the underworld, you super-rich
star!
Like you, I must go down? as the human beings say, to whom I want to
descend.
Quoting Amity
Quoting Amity
2. Quoting Amity
Quoting Amity
In 2. there is a footnote for 'I must go down'.
Starts: 'German uses untergehen, literally to go under for the expression the sun goes down. Nietzsche throughout Zarathustra uses wordplay to signify that Zarathustras going under is a going over or transition, ubergehen ¨ , from human to superhuman, from man to overman...'
So far, I prefer 2. less archaic and flows better. Less blank spaces to jump over...
The translation recommended by @Fooloso4 :up:
I have similar problems with its readability. I've given all my copies away!
A book discussion might be helpful if well organised and roughly scheduled.
There is so much of it to get through - it's quite a project.
See Contents pp7-9 of http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/LoserLit/zarathustra.pdf
I've been looking at how it can be broken down into segments.
I could only find this:
https://www.litcharts.com/lit/thus-spoke-zarathustra/zarathustra-s-prologue *
But that's only a couple of pages at a time. It would take forever...
How many pages can a person chew through, in what interval of time,without experiencing indigestion?
It depends on the reader but for a discussion involving more than one...any suggestions for pacing?
* It might be seen as a bit of a cheat and not everyone approves of using secondary sources.
For various reasons. @Fooloso4 can reel them off!
However, if it gives newbies a heads-up, then all to the good...I think.
I agree that it is probably best not to refer to them in-discussion.
I've been guilty of that previously and it just muddies the waters. Terribly.
Also can make you lazy and not think for yourself!
Excellent advice!
I've had a look at other book/paper discussions.
The OP is important to set out the aims and the way forward.
Here is a pretty formal example:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3617/book-club-being-time-by-martin-heidegger/p1
and then there's this more laid back:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/922/sellars-empiricism-the-philosophy-of-mind/p1
So, @Tate - over to you.
How do you want to proceed?
I'd just like to take an appropriate chunk at a time and discuss, ask questions, cross reference, etc. I don't see a problem with using multiple translations.
You already posted the first chunk, so:. questions:
Why is he talking to the sun?
Why does he think the sun needs him, his eagle, and his serpent?
:up:
Quoting Tate
I wasn't intending to take over. In fact, I'm not even a Nietzsche fan :yikes:
Not sure I will follow through. Just a few suggestions, as requested in OP.
Sorry I only posted part of: Z's Prologue 1 (p49 pdf) for reasons of comparison.
Didn't realise how much was left.
The remainder:
Quoting TSZ
Wow. Right in there with the questions! I haven't read it properly, so haven't a clue.
(I've been out and about...not on here all the time, even if it seems like that :wink: )
No first impressions...?
I'm not sure about copy and pasting the whole book in chunks.
Probably copyright issues...
Perhaps just refer to bits of the chunks, meaningful to the reader?
To clarify, I do not think that using secondary sources is a cheat. They can be helpful. The problem, as I see it, is using only secondary sources. It is as if one were to read the tour guide without touring the places described.
:up:
Your thoughts so far?
You asked:
Quoting Amity
It is not necessary, but depending on who wrote it, it might be helpful or not. I have not read Pippin's introduction but have read other things by him. I think he is a reliable source, which is not to say that his is the final word. I think you cited him in the Hegel discussion group.
I just took a quick look at his introduction to TSZ:
I see that in his recommendations for further reading, under contemporary commentaries he begins with:
I have read and recommend both. (See, I am not against secondary sources) You might recognize his name from his commentaries on Plato.
When he starts talking about the sun's night journey, this is immediately pinged for me. The Egyptians posited a night journey of the sun through the belly of a snake.
Some things here to note: the connection between sun and man, Z likening himself to the sun - bringing illumination to those for whom he shines, separating himself from and once again joining man, going up and going down.
But he is also unlike the sun:
Yes. But he's talking about a mutually dependent relationship between the source of life and light, and his own being, divided by high and low: the eagle and the snake.
No need to go into the symbolism super deeply, though. The point is: Zarathustra, the creator of an ancient religion, has withdrawn from the world, become full, and now wants to shine his light upon mankind. So he goes down the mountain.
When I read this, I wondered why he had first sought solitude...it seemed to me that he was like any other world-weary hermit and seeker of peace and enlightenment.
Then having had his fill, his heart moved again to find some purpose.
He sees the sun as having a sense of purpose; to bring meaning to him, his eagle and snake.
What would the sun do without them?
Probably just shine on...no matter.
Z wants to share light, like the sun, with those human beings he had left behind...
Let them be enlightened by him, a sage? and the sun, nature.
He wants to reach out and share with those whose hands reach out? The needy?
Or does he need to have human hands so that he can reach out? To give.
Nature again. From the spiritual to the mundane.
Quoting Tate
I didn't read that anywhere. What ancient religion?
He's also called Zoroaster. He's the founder of Zoroastrianism. According to N's sister, he had a peculiar relationship with Zarathustra since childhood.
In what way is the sun dependent on that on which it shines?
Quoting Tate
Not divided but both high and low.
Quoting Tate
Why Zarathustra? Or perhaps the better question is, why the return of Zarathustra?
Thank you :up:
Are you asking me? Or saying that it's not dependent?
Quoting Fooloso4
There's obviously a distinction between high and low. It's a division.
Quoting Fooloso4
What are your thoughts?
He is, however, different than the hermit saint he meets. Both profess to love mankind, but the saint loves mankind "too much" and thus turns away from man to God.
Spoiler alert :wink:
Haven't got to that bit yet...
Thanks, this sounds like a good yarn :cool:
@Fooloso4
What does this remind you of?
Plato's I went down yesterday to the Piraeus..."
The symbolism of going from Athens (the light, "above") to the port (lowly commercialism).
The division.
I am asking you and anyone else who might be reading.
Quoting Tate
The question is whether man is a divided being and not a unity of some sort. Of what sort of unity
will be something taken up by Nietzsche.
Quoting Tate
I will leave the question open for now. It is a guiding question. One might expect, given the death of God, that religion would be rejected.
It's the eternal return.
Quoting Fooloso4
The death of God is an historical event.
Good point! Going up and down, high and low, the theme reverberates in both Plato and Nietzsche.
What is the role of religion without God?
I'm sure you don't think Zarathustra comes down the mountain to teach atheism. That would be contrary to the text.
Yay, I'm cooking with gas :fire:
*keeping an eye on energy consumption and cost*
I don't see where that question is coming from. The death of God is an historical event. It's not a doctrine Nietzsche is pushing.
Z is praying to the Sun, his spiritual 'God'.
He wants nature's supernatural blessing so that he can be a 'disciple' and carry the word, in all its shining glory. Or something.
Quoting TSZ
Like the son/Sun of 'God', Jesus the man, he is part of a Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit ?
3 in One? Or One in Three?
Come down to Earth, to enlighten but is there also a devil to deal with?
This is intriguing me more than I thought it would.
:smile:
BTW, I am not looking at secondary sources as I make my way through this.
I'm enjoying it as a newcomer. Like reading the Short Stories but I don't need to guess the author :wink:
I don't even want to know about the author.
This is a first for me.
Not looking things up.
He comes to teach the overman.
Right. :blush: :up:
An event the (good) news of which the people had either not heard or did not believe.
Quotations are from the Cambridge edition.
The stutterer likely refers to Paul. The need to smash their ears suggests that they do not believe God is dead.
Another spoiler: In Christianity God must become man. For Nietzsche man must become a god.
Yes. Atheists don't say, "God is dead.". They say, "There has never been a god."
That statement expresses a cultural truth post Enlightenment. There's no need to campaign for atheism because it already won.
I'll not debate this with you. You're certainly welcome to your own interpretation.
Shall we move on?
It doesn't spoil if it helps me understand where I'm at with my questioning if that makes sense.
So, anything you got is more than :100: welcome!
Now he only loves his perfect God.
"Then thou carriedst thine ashes into the mountains: wilt thou now carry thy fire into the valleys? Fearest thou not the incendiary's doom?
Yea, I recognise Zarathustra. Pure is his eye, and no loathing lurketh about his mouth. Goeth he not along like a dancer?
Altered is Zarathustra; a child hath Zarathustra become; an awakened one is Zarathustra: what wilt thou do in the land of the sleepers?
As in the sea hast thou lived in solitude, and it hath borne thee up. Alas, wilt thou now go ashore? Alas, wilt thou again drag thy body thyself?"
Zarathustra answered: "I love mankind."
?"Why," said the saint, "did I go into the forest and the desert? Was it not because I loved men far too well?
Now I love God: men, I do not love. Man is a thing too imperfect for me. Love to man would be fatal to me."
More of from what? The disagreement you posit and attribute to me?
God is dead means several different tbut related hings for Nietzsche.
Ok. The saint might be a symbol for clergymen in general. Off to themselves, they aren't aware of what's been happening in the world, that is, that the Enlightenment has come and gone. God has become a fairy tale.
If you only refer to the Cambridge book pages, I have difficulty finding the quotes in the Cambridge pdf.
I'm using the pdf, so I've been referencing that.
As the footnote indicates:
Ich liebe die Menschen means literally I love human beings."
Quoting Tate
And, as we will see with the tightrope walker, crossing.
It's becoming a nightmare to follow.
Quoting Tate
What page, where?
The problem is different members use different translations.
means the section of the prologue that is numbered 2, which is page 5 of the Cambridge translation.
OK. Got that.
I'll just have to check the bottom of the pdf pages for the actual book page in the translation we're using.
More generally, those who by turning to something higher they call God, turn away from man. The saint's love/hatred of man means he wants nothing to do with the clergy or even the monastery.
Quoting Tate
There were many who in Nietzsche's time and in ours who are well aware of the Enlightenment who stil hold to a belief in God.
OK. Found it. You're using this translation.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1998/1998-h/1998-h.htm#link2H_4_0004
We can copy this freely, I'm going to close some of the gaps:
Quoting TSZ - Gutenberg Thomas Common trans.
The saint says:
"Go not to men, but stay in the forest! Go rather to the animals! Why not be like mea bear amongst bears, a bird amongst birds?"
During the Enlightenment, human reason was lauded as if it had finally triumphed over the darkness of superstition.
Then came Darwin to challenge this idea. There's nothing special about humans. We are just animals among other animals.
Sure. It's the fallout from the death of God that Nietzsche addresses, though.
I will mention one: the death of God on the cross. But unlike the "good news" of Christianity, the resurrection, there is only the "news" that God is dead. But this too is good news.
That is not the Enlightenment theme. The Enlightenment did not advocate turning our back on mankind. It was a turning away from God to man
The point is, the Enlightenment was supposed to be the triumph of reason. Almost immediately, European culture turned against that via Romanticism.
In a way, the saint, by representing the darkness of superstition, is sympathetic to Darwinism, where humans are just animals. Materialism will eventually call into question whether Reason, so worshipped during the Enlightenment, is anything but an illusion.
Interestingly it continues:
? Ich liebe die Menschen means literally I love human beings. Earlier translators ignored the
ecological framework in which Nietzsche wrote Zarathustra by using expressions like man.
The prologue establishes a prevailing semantic field, a framework in which human beings, animals, nature and earth interact or should interact as never before.
[emphasis added]
I interpret 'mankind' here as being things of the world; material objects and desire.
The saint rejected this, seeking spirituality - the 'higher' level.
Human beings are seen as 'imperfect' due to their physical needs and hunger for the 'lower'.
Reminds me of something along the lines of being in the world, but not of the world.
Love for material objects would kill his spirit.
The separation of body and mind; the physical and the spiritual.
But they are both required...
That makes sense. Mankind is earthly. The Saint wants an ethereal perfection he represents as God. Z says he loves the earthly. He wants to be of the earth
This is the first time I've noticed this aspect of the saint. You can try to make Reason into a replacement for God. They're both eternal, and above the changing fates of earthly beings.
Thinking aloud.
Z asks the saint 'Why...?
Did he mean "When did I speak of, say anything about love?" - Love of material stuff?
Or is it short-hand for "Why do you think it's love I carry?" - In his heart?
Does this mean Z has no love for fellow human beings, even if he wants to return as one?
He only wants to be a Giver. In control as a master to a slave?
The saint seems more spiteful and selfish than spiritual.
To lessen the human burden ( material or spiritual) by helping them carry it?
How would that do anyone most good, to be dependent?
And why would Z want that kind of burden, when he wants to enlighten?
There is here a series of questions that begins almost as soon as they meet. The first question "why' question:
Z replied:
Neither is asking the question to the other, for how would they know?
Because the saint loves mankind too much he turns away from man. He can't bear what man is. It seems as if what he loves is the ideal of man. Because he loves mankind Z turns toward man with a gift.
The saint does not want to give anything to man but rather wants something taken away. I think this refers to salvation from sin, the three metamorphoses of the spirit (page 16), and the burden of the camel.
The saint ask Z what he brings "us". Z says he has nothing to give the saint but leaves quickly before he takes something away (page 5). This might be a clue to the second part of the book's title:
A Book for All and None".
He also says:
If Z were to tell the saint the news that God is dead would be to stea something from him. Why would Z give the gift of the overman to mankind but not to the saint? I think it has something to do with what he says right before he asks what Z has brought us:
There is for the saint no burden to be carried or to be alleviated from. The god who is his god is not one Z wants to take away. To take it away would be to leave him empty.
I hadn't thought of that. It seemed like a dialogue. So, is this internal self-talk - or a writer's technique to help the reader better know the characters?
Quoting Fooloso4
OK, you have the advantage of having read this before. I think this is a book which you can read over and over and still find something new or revealing.
Quoting Tate
The beauty of discussions like this; new ways of looking and discovering.
Thanks for starting the thread :up:
Quoting Fooloso4
The royal 'we'? Those 'above' in the spiritual realm. Or the saint and his natural companions.
Quoting Fooloso4
What's the link between the 'clue' and the title?
'Lonely in the lanes'. I like that.
Mankind as a general collective can be suspicious or scared to be separate.
We (the unroyal) mingle in the marketplace.
Not wanting to be alone along a narrow way; on a parallel single line as in a swimming pool.
We cling to each other in our beds in darkness. No light shining. We can imagine dark deeds outside.
We build separate family homes for shelter and protection. We guard our property. The material.
Quoting Fooloso4
Yes, it would deny the saint his comfort blanket; his faith is his protection. Against what?
Men? The World? He wants his Garden of Eden.
Quoting Fooloso4
I'm still not exactly sure what 'the gift of the overman' is?
This made me think of our 'Plato's Phaedo' discussion.
The repetition and singing as incantation; myths and magic.
Why the difference between the lines, even if it seems they are saying the same thing?
Quoting Fooloso4
Before someone's belief/faith is questioned, attacked or removed, there would need to be something to take its place. Our minds can't say empty forever...
OK, getting there.
Reading continues > Section 3
I take it to be a rhetorical device. When, for example, Z says: "Why did I speak of love? I bring mankind a gift." he is not simply asking a question but answering it.
Quoting Amity
Yes, it is deep. Always more to be discovered or uncovered.
Quoting Amity
Z says he brings mankind a gift. But there is a tension here because the saint distances himself from mankind. The saint says: "They are mistrustful of hermits and do not believe that we come to give gifts."
Quoting Amity
What Z has to teach is for all, but, as is the case with the saint, for none. Put differently, who does "us" refer to? Whose ears? If not for certain ears and no one can hear or understand what Nietzsche has come to teach then although addressed to all it is for none.
Quoting Amity
Given the context, our property seems to refer to our beliefs.
Quoting Amity
That is not how I hear this:
Quoting Amity
Good question. It should become clearer as you read on. As with many things in Nietzsche there is a reversal of Christian teachings. See, for example, 1 Corinthians 12 on the gifts of the holy spirit.
How do you hear it?
For present and future reference, to consider how this is reversed by Nietzsche:
Quoting Bible Gateway - Concerning Spiritual Gifts
Strange thing happened there. I didn't bold the last sentence.
It could be spooky or just that the next heading was in bolds:
Unity and Diversity in the Body
As a deep felt celebration of his life and god.
Quoting Amity
What I noticed here was the change from God to god.
The difference in context and circumstance; between time ('When') and person (''With)
1. 'God', the general God: The Big External Spirit in the Sky (Heaven). The Ideal.
The religious inspiration for the saint's creativity.
'When...' - He makes them with feeling, then sings in Faith. Hallelujah! Praise the Lord!
Singing as Incantation, like in a church. Invoking magic charms.
2. 'god', here. is his god. A more personal god.
The saint is human with a wide range of emotions, from joy to sadness, anger even?
'With....' - In the midst of 'suffering', he talks/prays directly to his particular god, special to him alone.
This personal relationship comforts him.
His Belief is his protection against the lower parts of him, his demons. Help me in my hour of need.
Without God, he would be vulnerable. That is why he praises God. He might also think that unless God receives gratitude, He will become angry and desert him.
That is one way of looking at it.
Quoting Fooloso4
The burden of being human still remains, even if he might delude himself with magic charms.
The saint has Pride in being above others he looks down on.
Physical and Spiritual combined.
"Although it is acknowledged e.g., by Walter Kaufmann that Nietzsche later removed the figure of the saint from this triumvirate of human exemplars, what has been overlooked is the fact that his understanding of the saint itself underwent change.Footnote3 In his early account Nietzsche understood the saint as embodying the supreme achievement of a self-transcending feeling of oneness and identity with all living things, while in his later account he viewed the saint as a representative of an unhealthy, life-denying ascetic ideal. This shift, I contend, is due in large part to Nietzsche's development of an ethic of power as part of his turn against Schopenhauer's ethic of compassion, which needs to be seen in light of his ongoing effort to articulate and defend an adequate cosmodicy. My ultimate aim in this essay is to read the earlier Nietzsche against the later Nietzsche with the help of Dostoevsky's novelistic depiction of the saintly ideal and to suggest that when properly articulated the saintly ideal is able to provide a more adequate cosmodicy than that which is offered in Nietzsche's ethic of power. However, we must first begin by considering in more detail Nietzsche's earlier and later accounts of the saintly ideal." --David McPherson 2015
Zarathustra's declaration that he loves mankind is a grand one in this light. He's prepared to face that heartbreak. In other words, he's prepared to look straight at events like the Holocaust, and say "yes" to life in spite of it.
Oh, thanks for that, Tate. It looks like my interpretation chimes with the latter.
I should have known that there would be an early and a late Nietzsche.
Reminds me of my attempted reading and confusion with Wittgenstein.
Damn them for changing :wink:
Quoting Tate
A new word for me. Care to explain what it means?
"In Schopenhauer as Educator Nietzsche is centrally concerned with addressing the problem of cosmodicy, as indeed he is throughout much of his work. In other words, he is concerned with the question of how our life in the world is to be justified as worthwhile in light of the prevalent reality of suffering.Footnote4 That life should require justification is only the case if life presents itself to us as prima facie problematic with respect to its worthwhileness. By taking extensive suffering as the main problematic feature of life in light of which justification is required, Nietzsche is following Schopenhauer. For Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, this problem becomes especially acute for those good Europeans, like themselves, who no longer regard as tenable any religious interpretation of the world as purposefully ordered according to the goodness and governance of a god.Footnote5 As both realize, even if one no longer regards theodicy as viable, this still leaves the problem of cosmodicy (though neither uses this term). Indeed, theodicy is only the most historically dominant form in which the problem of cosmodicy has been addressed. Schopenhauer of course did not think that life could be justified given his view of the all-encompassing reality of suffering due to the insatiable and contradictory nature of the will and thus he advocated the resignation of the will to life. Nietzsche, for his part, sought to overcome Schopenhauer's pessimism (i.e., nihilism) through providing a perspective according to which one could affirm all of life, including suffering. Schopenhauer as Educator represents one of his most significant early attempts (along with The Birth of Tragedy) to overcome Schopenhauer's pessimism and provide a justification for human existence" --David McPherson 2015
That is one powerful statement. :fire:
Yea, Nietzsche's amazing.
I can't thank you enough for putting me through this hell :nerd:
Seeing N in a new light :sparkle:
The purpose of the incantations in the Phaedo is to charm away the fear of death. The saint is praising his god.
Quoting Amity
I take this to be about the difference between God as universal and the god who is his god. But I don't know that the saint sees them as different. It may be an expression of closeness, of unity.
The author's own repetition of the expressed incantations makes us stop and think.
Just as Plato's does...to charm the readers to think again...
Or I'm just making up a load of garbage to fill in my time.
The déjà vu is strong :nerd:
Quoting Fooloso4
Still a comfort blanket, the removal of which would destroy him or his sense of (well)being.
Z is being kind, not wishing to leave him empty and vulnerable.
The saint might not see them as different but the author might.
And the readers are made aware by the clever changes.
I dunno.
I'll leave it there.
With regard to the question of justification we should look back to Paul:
The claim is that we suffer because of sin, but Jesus freed us from sin.
In the Birth of Tragedy Nietzsche says:
This should be understood in light of his claim that one should make of the the self a work of art. See, for example, The Gay Science 107.
What motivates the saint to live a life in praise of his god?
It has something to do with the desire for perfection. I think you may be right, to the extent that the imperfection of man can be troubling.
I am not sure about McPherson's contention that the treatment of the Saint was a function of changing views N had of the 'ethics of power.' The view of Christianity as a suicide pact was developed through earlier and later views as depicted in The Gay Science, which includes writings before and after TSZ. So the following statement regarding saints strikes me as applicable whether the agency of the figure was something that served a narrative or not:
The Saint doesn't represent Christianity in general. For N, the Saint is a person who has experienced some sort of ego death and has blended with all life.
Early on when N was suggesting that humanity should be bent toward creating great human beings, the Saint was at the top of his list. That changed over time. He began to see the Saint as as one who abandons earthly life, so the taint of Christianity is on him, but he's still not representative of the whole religion.
Which passages argue that 'humanity should be bent toward creating great human beings?'
Nietzsche went to much effort to demonstrate that such a measure was tied directly to sets of values that were not shared amongst all.
In Schopenhauer as Educator?
If you want to talk about N, possibly start another thread?
I think that references outside of the TSZ text throws light upon what is going on there. But I take your point that I am asking everyone to read all of Nietzsche to understand some part of it.
My question about: "Which passages argue that 'humanity should be bent toward creating great human beings?'" is still germane.in the text of TSZ. The text seems more focused upon how to survive difficult conditions.
Can you provide a textual reference?
Thanks.
The 'germane' link isn't working.
That is some kind of glitch I cannot remove. No link there.
Fixed. Removal of . between 'germane' and 'in'.
Yes, I understand that.
I've been there and done that with other book discussions.
Trouble is when there are too many and people start arguing the toss.
But whatever...
Do what needs to be done for clarity :pray:
" In a remarkable passage from Schopenhauer as Educator, Nietzsche describes his understanding of the saint in the following terms:
"And so nature at last needs the saint, in whom the ego is completely melted away and whose life of suffering is no longer felt as his own life or is hardly so felt but as a profound feeling of oneness and identity with all living things: the saint in whom there appears that miracle of transformation which the game of becoming never hits upon, that final and supreme becoming-human after which all nature presses and urges for its redemption from itself. It is incontestable that we are all related and allied to the saint, just as we are related to the philosopher and artist; there are moments and as it were bright sparks of the fire of love in whose light we cease to understand the word I, there lies something beyond our being which at these moments moves across into it, and we are thus possessed of a heartfelt longing for bridges between here and there.Footnote1"
-- McPherson 2015
By the Geneology of Morals, his view of the Saint has changed. He now says:
"So far the most powerful human beings have still bowed worshipfully before the saint as the riddle of self-conquest and deliberate final renunciation. Why did they bow? In him and as it were behind the question mark of his fragile and miserable appearance they sensed the superior force that sought to test itself in such conquest, the strength of the will in which they recognized and honored their own strength and delight in dominion: they honored something in themselves when they honored the saint. Moreover, the sight of the saint awakened a suspicion in them: such an enormity of denial, of anti-nature will not have been desired for nothing, they said to and asked themselves. There may be a reason for it, some very great danger about which the ascetic, thanks to his secret comforters and visitors, might have inside information. In short, the powerful of the world learned a new fear before him; they sensed a new power, a strange, as yet unconquered enemy it was the will to power that made them stop before the saint.Footnote16" -GoM
Quoting Amity
The Prologue to TSZ has been described as "thick." There are lot of ideas in there. This is just to explain why the saint declares that he's a "bear among bears." Nietzsche is referring to the spiritual stature of the saint, though this is not strictly a Christian spirituality.
How do you relate these commentaries to the clear rejection of Christian belief put forward by Nietzsche? Do you have a set of quotes by Nietzsche that supports these ideas?
I think Nietzsche enjoyed the position of anthropologist. In that role, he was free to take whatever beliefs and values a society holds as mythology, which was in line with his epistemology. In this, he was the forerunner of people like Jung and Joseph Campbell, who sought to go beyond rejecting Christianity to placing it in a psycho-historical framework.
In other words, yes, he rejected Christianity. He condemned Christians. But then, he condemned just about everyone at some time or another.
The ideal of the saint is not strictly about Christianity. It's more in line with some kind of esoteric mysticism.
Quoting Paine
? My last post had two quotes from him. One from Schopenhauer as Educator, and one from GoM.
Yes, I see how the Genealogy of Morals quote ties into the 'ethics of power.'
But from where do you see the process being about 'producing great human beings?'
That's early Nietzsche in Schopenhauer as Educator.
Per McPherson:
"According to Nietzsche in Schopenhauer as Educator, what is needed in order to justify our existence is to provide suffering with a higher purpose or meaning sufficient to make life worth living. However, doing so requires that human beings transcend their animality, since for animals as mere animals all suffering must remain senseless suffering without any higher significance.Footnote6 What is distinctive about being human is precisely the capacity to transcend our animality and turn the thorn of suffering against itself by providing it with a higher sense of significance.Footnote7 Above all, Nietzsche claims, this higher sense of significance is provided by those true human beings who are no longer animal: viz., the philosopher, the artist, and the saint.Footnote8 These three figures stand as the highest human exemplars precisely because of the ways in which they are able to utilize suffering for the sake of great achievements that go far beyond what is possible for non-human animals. In doing so they provide suffering with a higher significance as well as a perspective from which life in the world can be justified. Thus Nietzsche contends: It is the fundamental idea of culture, insofar as it sets for each one of us but one task: to promote the production of the philosopher, the artist and the saint within us and without us and thereby to work at the perfecting of nature.Footnote9 Likewise, he says: Mankind must work continually at the production of individual great men that and nothing else is its task. [ ] How can your life, the individual life, receive the highest value, the deepest significance? [ ] Certainly only by your living for the good of the rarest and most valuable exemplars.Footnote10"
Thanks for the reference. What characterizes the saint is the absence of ego:
but I do not see the connection with esoteric mysticism.
There are some interesting comparisons with the saint is Z.
(Emphasis added):
The saint in Z identifies himself as a hermit. His duty is only to himself.There is no mention of artists or philosophers or culture. Perhaps what changed is Nietzsche's ideas about the value of the melting away of the ego. In the later works the self is of central importance.
It has been noted by Kaufmann and others how this doesn't square with the claims about N's idea of the will to power.
Right. By the time he writes TSZ, he no longer approves of the Saint's isolation. In TSZ, the Saint refers to both himself and Z as anchorites, which is a religious hermit. He says people don't trust anchorites, which is mentioned in GoM.
Z, of course, proceeds on down to the world of humans. From now on, I'll say "human" instead of "men" because I think it's clearer.
It relates because it undercuts the language of purpose regarding the production of great people in the other Schopenhauer quote.
In the general discussion surrounding how Nietzsche developed his views, his willingness to develop lines of thought that do not fit with each other seems to be something he was more comfortable with than his readers. When I read him, I hear the following challenge:
"Who gave you a promissory note that assures you that this all makes sense? Talk to Hegel, if that is your bag."
If the Prologue is 'thick' with lots of ideas does that mean that once mastered, the rest of the book is easier to get through? A walk in the park :wink:
I agree it is worth spending as much time as necessary to understand the foundations.
Grateful for all your help.
I understood the 'bear' bit as pointing to a spirit of nature but isn't that what Z is about?
No, it's about overcoming that, right? :chin:
Now that made me smile :cool:
Yeah. No one has actually read it cover to cover.
In juvenescence, I was taken in by a phrase on the first page, which in my translation was rendered "Hail, Great Star!", which I adopted as an occasional morning prayer.
But on revisiting it in my adultery I find a glowering self-righteous lunacy. The pretence that the sun needs Zarathustra, his eagle and his snake is nauseating.
I would be pleasantly surprised if this thread manages to reach the flies in the marketplace.
Quoting Tate
Quoting Paine
Quoting Fooloso4
***
Quoting Banno
I'm trying to work out how long it will take. I joined 2 days ago.
To read the book only: The Cambridge pdf starts at p49 and ends p312.
So far, I've reached Prologue 3, starting on p51. We are on p4 of the thread.
I've a feeling the others will up the pace fairly soon...
As already noted by @Paine 'book discussions are difficult to carry out in this forum.'
Although I've been on the point of giving up, even this early on, the other 3 main readers seem to have enough knowledge, experience and enthusiasm to see it through. Or at least help others who try.
Some might drop in and join at the relevant section...where others drop out...
Time will tell...
I think we beat the saint to death, poor guy. Let's move on.
I await your guidance and questions... :nerd:
The next section introduces the Superman. I'm sure everyone will have their own notion of what that is.
Recall that the exchange with the Saint sets up this introduction. The world is full of suffering. Humans are ever afflicted and the idea of God made it more bearable. God cared. God was testing us, or we were paying for sins, or it was the devil and God could make things right. We were caught up in a really important cosmic drama and it was worthwhile to stick it out and see how the novel ended.
But now God is dead.
Zarathustra spares the Saint from disillusion but tries to shake the community of men from the dream. The key element is the contempt that kept the dream alive:
The totality of the Christian God was toxic from the beginning of its reign. Now that it has lost its grip, we are not able to just pick up where we left off. The cruelty the soul has become accustomed to consuming through the centuries is still expecting its next meal. The appeal to something people lack is difficult to convey. The overman is an expectation of an unknown future that is supposed to replace the previous experience of certainty. Zarathustra tries the following:
The first proclamation of Z to the marketplace crowd (gathered to be entertained by a tightrope walker).
I teach you the overman..." ( note 3)
What on earth must he have looked or sounded like?
At the end of section 2, Z had spoken to his heart in amazement that the saint hadn't heard the news that "God is dead!"
Why would the saint have heard any news? And how would Z have, being isolated?
He received a message - an internal voice as a result of his meditations, or as a disciple of the Sun?
Now, Z brings the 'Good News' from up high, down to the people, evangelical style.
Note 3:
What is the meaning of "God is Dead"?
An idea in the mind of Z? Or a feeling in his heart/soul?
The scene is dream-like to me. They think he's talking about the tight-rope walker: the [I]over[/I] man.
Quoting Amity
True, that doesn't make much sense.
Quoting Amity
Good question. I'm not really sure.
A religious drama.
I see Charlton Heston with his wild, white woolly hair and beard as Moses in the Ten Commandments!
Or Jesus preaching in the marketplace...reaching out and rescuing the world and its people.
All of a sudden I heard the proclamation:
"The king is dead, long live the king!"
But this new 'king' is not a continuation of the previous.
Z is not an heir to the Christian kingdom and throne.
Is there a sense of one delusion being replaced by another...?
I have a dream.
That's exactly the right image because Zarathustra is handing them a set of values. These values are in opposition to the Christian other-worldly framework, and they're opposed to the moral vacuum left by the death of God.
What exactly these new values are is a little foggy. It has something to do with love of life, but as a goal for humanity, there's a distinct dark side to it. If we erase the distinction between soul (psyche) and body, the quest for the Ubermensch implies eugenics.
Quoting Tate
That is because his task is not to create new values but to create creators. This is touched upon in his first speech, "On the Three Metamorphoses" (16), and developed later with regard to the eternal return.
Quoting Tate
Complete nonsense!
Unfortunately it's not nonsense.
"The old tablets of morality are broken, and the new ones are only half-written. With these words Alexander Tille ended his book, Von Darwin bis Nietzsche (1895), ushering in a process, which still continues, of making use of Nietzsche both to diagnose a modern condition of godlessness, and to find something to fill the gap left by God's death. It would probably be true to say that the new tablets of the law are still only half written, if they are even that much written (and perhaps postmodernism means accepting, even celebrating that fact), but in the first decades of the twentieth century interpretations of Nietzsche combined with the new science of eugenics to form a potent attempt to formulate a new code of morals. Why this combination came about, how it was articulated, and what were its results, are the subjects of this chapter."
-- Nietzsche and Eugenics: Breeding Superman
Based on what you have cited this is not about Nietzsche, it is about a questionable interpretation of Nietzsche that attempts to combine Nietzsche and eugenics.
Some key phrases:
Quoting Tate
Quoting Tate
This is quite different than your claim that:
Quoting Tate
The question of the soul or psyche or self and body does not imply eugenics. Making use of Nietzsche in support of eugenics is not the same as the claiming that what he says implies eugenics. Even the title "Breeding Superman" indicates how far such efforts are from Nietzsche.
The book as described by the publisher:
is not even about Nietzsche.
I think this is where I agree with postmodernism. At the point that eugenics became wildly popular in the UK and the US, it was obvious to people that Nietzsche supported it.
Since eugenics is anathema to us, specifically because of Nazism, we don't think of Nietzsche as favoring it.
Every generation is going to have its own Nietzsche. If you don't accept this, that's fine. Just take the point that if the prevailing interpretation of Nietzsche in the early 20th Century pointed to eugenics, then you can't say that's nonsense. You can say it's wrong, but not nonsense. Let's reserve the word "nonsense" for that which truly makes no sense, ok?
I think it is important to note that Nietzsche's ideas are potentially explosive.
I think we all know that any 'Big Thinker' in philosophy, theology or science can have 'Dangerous Ideas'.
Especially those which challenge the status quo.
There is always the potential for radical explosion with interpretations twisted to suit any agenda.
Quoting Tate
'Something to do with...'
Is not good enough.
We need to look at what the text says as we move along.
Isn't that the whole point of this thread?
To look closely at what is and is not said without jumping to conclusions...
And how it is said. What do we enjoy about the writing?
It has nothing to do with our views on eugenics. It has to do with what Nietzsche said.
What does Nietzsche say about eugenics?
What does Nietzsche say about breeding?
What does Nietzsche say about the relationship between the overman and breeding?
The term "breeding" has different senses. "Good breeding" for example has nothing to do with "selective breeding".
The second essay of the Genealogy begins:
This has nothing to do with selectively breeding human beings that are entitled to make promises. It is a task that nature has set itself. Animals breed. We are all the result of breeding.
How does eugenics follow from erasing the distinction between soul (psyche) and body?
Quoting Tate
You work hard to find an easy way out. It was you, not the prevailing interpretation of Nietzsche, that made this claim. Even it this was the prevailing interpretation it does not mean it is one you should propound. You have given no evidence in support of your claim.
Quoting Tate
Yes, this also puzzled me. Perhaps there is a missing link, or two, in the logic?
There is actually quite a bit of academic work examining the connection between Nietzsche and eugenics. He spoke of breeding experiments. He suggested that women should be valued according to their contribution to creating great humans.
I'm not all that interested in proving it to you when all you have to do is look it up. :grin:
I'm on the verge of leaving this pop stand anyways.
Are you talking about this thread or TPF?
Why to either?
You make my point. There is also quite a bit on Nietzsche and Nazism. That does not mean he supported such thinking and practices or that the work on it supports the connection.
Quoting Tate
I am asking you what Nietzsche said. You made the claim. Are you unable to back it up?
The beauty of reading from a pdf is its searchability.
Especially when they are profoundly misunderstood.
I suggest reading Genealogy of Morals, Essay 3, section 26 for a thorough thrashing of antisemites, nationalists, and the supposed 'scientific' gas emitted by many a fraud.
Where in Nietzsche's text do you see him "erase the distinction between soul (psyche) and body?" It may reveal the source of some misunderstanding.
Quoting Amity
In the old days we used a thing called the Contents. It remains in vestal form in your PDF.
But it does mean people feel the need to address it, with, I assume, something beyond "No, that's a misreading."
I tend to think this sort of thing is interesting, just as other commonly misunderstood phenomena are. To "save them appearances", you want not just to point out that the moon is in fact much smaller than a star, but also explain why it appears to be so much larger.
So it is with texts. In some cases a misreading can be explained by knowing deception. In some cases, it's a failure of the intellectual conscience. But in some of those cases and in others, a widespread misreading indicates something there in the text that people are hanging their interpretation on. So it might be understandable, even when it's wrong, or at least not as perspicuous as other readings. People took Wittgenstein for a behaviorist, and that's probably wrong, but it's not like there's *nothing* in his writing to suggest that.
Is trying to understand him, as he presents his thought, an act of praise?
Is your revulsion the measure of all who don't share in it?
I agree. Some associate Nietzsche with Nazism. It is important to uncover how this came about. It is through Nietzsche's sister Elisabeth who became his guardian and literary executor.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I had a professor in grad school who claimed this. I argued against this in class. His attitude toward me after this was, to say the least, less than friendly.
What do you see as his spirit and in what way do those who praise him push against it?
Nietzsche is a conundrum. In some ways he's amazing. But then he says things I can't forgive, like that a large portion of the human population is superfluous. It's a bad idea to try to white wash that. It can be taken as food for thought, though. Nietzsche is himself something to overcome.
Or overlook. What I've read reads like the work of a very smart incel.
That's says more about you than it does about Nietzsche, I'm afraid.
Which he himself observed.
Maybe the thread you want to anchor is not a reading discussion of a particular book but a list of what you reject from his text. Then you can own your interpretation instead of referring to secondhand sources to represent what you don't like. And we the readers can decide if the bad things are as you describe or something else.
I agree and it was cheap shot.
This video explains how I feel about that, but you have to watch the whole thing.
Quoting Tate
Unusual for Tate to hand out such compliments.
Any honest regard of He of the Great Moustache must accept that his ideas, rightly or wrongly, are used by nazis and icels and other nasty folk.
It just will not do to ignore the nasty interpretation, or to pretend that it is not to be found in the corpus.
Is that a metaphor for what I am asking for or the quality of what you revile?
Or both?
Which folk?
I cannot believe in a God who wants to be praised all the time.
Agree totally but that says more about me than Him, I'm afraid.
The ones in the marketplace?
Nice dodge.
The best way to read him is as satire, an antecedent of Shaun Mcauliffe.
Quoting Paine
A skill I picked up from Beyond Good and Evil.
Students are often the harshest voice against their teachers.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
The 'something there in the text' as the source of different interpretations and critical appraisal is key.
That is one reason for a close and careful reading, as with any philosophical text.
A book discussion is not just for those who love the author for whatever reason.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
What interests me is how a carefully constructed OP might briefly acknowledge the controversial aspects. This might just help any would-be readers or re-readers to understand the general before delving into the particulars of the book in question.
Is there a best way or an attitude to adopt when reading a book by Nietzsche?
One such question and a few responses, here:
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/8026/how-does-one-read-nietzsche-properly
As a beginner but still knowing the complexity of the work, my approach was to make it as simple and clear as possible. For the first time, no hunting around for secondary sources even if they help.
I wanted to keep my mind clutter-free and free from prejudice. However, that is difficult...
Some advice from the link:
Zarathustra descended from the mountain with nothing, because God is dead.
Do you think that Nietzsche wants us to believe Zarathustra more than Moses?
Oh, indeed...no flies on you!
I thought I had already linked to The Contents, pp7-9 of pdf.
I didn't realise that your Quoting Banno came from 'The Speeches of Zarathustra', the Section right after the Prologue.
Interesting titles, no? Is there anything significant about their placement? A fly sandwich?
On the New Idol
On the Flies of the Market Place
On Chastity
Is that the point you reached in your reading?
What do you mean by that?
That it all looks a bit like this...
Indeed. Where in a forum book discussion should this kind of thing be raised?
My preference would be in the OP.
Then, bearing that in mind, the participants could proceed with a close and careful reading.
Or not...
Why do you ask? Do you want to join in?
On my backburner is the comment from Paine:
Quoting Paine
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/733690
Kaufman translation, Ch 3 and 5.
:lol: So true :up:
Nothing?
Yes, and we should not ignore that Plato said that if we are to be just then men and women should exercise naked together, but this should not lead to sex, for breeding is controlled by the overlords. Descartes told us to only will what we know so as not to sin. The result being that we all would be bunch of do nothing philosophers. Rawls said that if there is to be justice we must be ignorant. Add your favorite philosopher. Stir, do not shake.
Funny and true, but Nietzsche did not say we should all be individuals, quite the opposite. He says that most are not capable of being individuals and are properly followers.
There are at least two important themes as issue:
Modern Liberalism, aka Individualism
Jesus' claim that he is the way.
Zarathustra says,
Good question. Nothing. Of any substance. But. Let me see...
OK, I'm thinking, thinking...
Stand well back, here comes a mind dump ( must be catching).
After 10yrs of solitude, the guy was fed-up:
1. Of the time spent alone
2. Of talking to himself, the Sun and his pets.
3. Of his diet and general circumstances.
4. No newspapers.
He had had his fill of solar enlightenment. His cup runneth over.
4. He had weird dreams as a result of sensory deprivation and consuming hallucinogenic herbs.
5. He received the message that 'God is Dead' (? auditory hallucination)
6. He was hit by a bolt of lightning/sunshine/brilliance ( vision)
7. His brain sparked with the glorious realisation that he was the new God.
''God is dead, long live the g/God''. ( delusional)
8. He wanted to Gift the Message, Big Idea and Superior All Greatness with others below him.
9. He wanted to save them, the sinners so as to have Equal Companions Along The Way.
10. Imparting His Word, Wisdom and Light >>>mini-Zs and gods (creators).
11. The First Rule of Fight Club is You Talk About Fight Club.*
11. More people in the club >>>It's a Wonderful World For All.
12. He wanted to go down on them...
* but if the rabble ears could, would not listen or understand The Tongues...then all Hell...
Something like that.
Oh, plus a New Set of Values... suitably vague.
So, only those Special Members would be stroked.
Time to return to the Text!
Another good question.
This is supposed to be philo fiction, right?
Kinda gets confusing. But I'm veering to...Maybe, aye. Maybe no.
I've spilled my beans. Over to you. What do you think?
I haven't read enough of Z or N, as you should have gathered by now.
I don't know.
All I know is I'd like to get on with reading and discussing the text. Anyone else still up for that?
In line with Nietzsche's play of opposites, something lost and something found.
(3)
This is elaborated upon later:
(43)
Thanks for that :up:
I have come to the conclusion that not even the thread starter is really up for reading the whole of the book. Indeed, how realistic is that? The Prologue alone is proving a challenge...
Many of the responses are not invested in finding something for themselves in the text. The discussion has become a parade where the ideas need to be pissed upon from the balconies.
The relief provided is palpable.
Yes. To all of the above.
I really do not know. It seems like a fundamental kind of question though. Zarathustra is a somewhat mythical ancient founder of a religion, into whose mouth Nietzsche is putting these words. On the face of it, there can be no more reason to believe these words than the words of any other religious leader.
Rather less, because they are 'really' Nietzsche's words, and we know he is somewhat a trickster and obscurantist.
Quoting Fooloso4
Thanks! This at least makes sense in context; God is dead, but humans are the creators of value, and the creation of values has value. And from that, he can allow himself 'the reevaluation of all values'. And so can we. And the basis on which we are to do that is is that we must ...
The Gospel of John.
So, having established a definite equivocation on the reliability of Zarathustra, my next question is , how can we reevaluate our values? But I think I should not expect an answer yet. My questions may seem premature, but they are only premature if you think they need to be answered immediately, before we confront the text; I propose them rather as ways to approach the text.
Thank you for pointing out what should have been an initial question for me.
The title of the book.
Why 'Thus Spake Zarathustra'?
I don't know that N is putting words into the prophet and founder of Zoroastrianism.
Why did he choose it? What inspired him to write it in this way?
I found this but have no idea as to its veracity. There are probably better places to go:
https://weddingincana.com/zarathustra-of-nietzsche-the-imaginary-savior
Your questions have made me look and think again :sparkle:
I am now more interested in following 'The Speeches' after I get through this interminable slog...
Even by reading something that is out of our usual habit ( like Z).
Being of an open and questioning mind.
To get over ourselves.
From the speech: On the Way of the Creator
Engaging in philosophical discussions?
How many people actually want to burn themselves?
Perhaps it needs others to light the spark...but then not to pour petrol over the flames?
A clean, steady burn.
Your thoughts?
Quoting unenlightened
Are you joining in a 'confrontation' of the text?
Other than suggesting questions to keep in mind, how do you tackle the prose?
Sentence by sentence? Word by word?
Recognising key elements you are keen to explore...?
Or do we need to examine what values we prioritise...good use of time, energy...to reach a sufficient depth of understanding? Whatever that might be...
A close reading is fine and even desirable... but how much time have we to devote in a forum discussion?
The saint says:
The ancient prophet of good and evil, who overturned the religion of his time, has a new teaching, beyond good and evil. Nietzsche, that old philologist, might have been aware that the name has as its root the word for camel. In Z's first speech, "On the Three Metamorphoses", the spirit first becomes a camel.
A closer look at Zoroastrianism is likely to reveal other connections.
Well, I didn't even see that when I passed it by!
I simply thought he was talking about the Nietzsche character...
So, N has gone beyond the original prophet?
Quoting Fooloso4
OK. Now I must continue; to pass through the eye of a needle...
Have you done that?
Yes and no. It is the metamorphoses of the spirit (Holy Ghost, Hegel). I will hold off saying more until we get there.
No.
OK. The suspense is almost killing me...let me know [s]if[/s] when I pass it by?
Quoting Fooloso4
:lol:
K.I.S.S. :kiss:
Hey, you guys can continue on at whatever speed you like. I'm reading an essay about the eternal return, so I'll be doing my own thing. Thanks for your generous participation.
I agree. Nevertheless, he's one of the most important and influential thinkers of his time. Not everyone's cup of tea, though.
:up: No worries. Stay well. :sparkle:
So, who's up for taking the lead? Not me. Don't have the knowledge or experience.
It can be a job share @Paine @Fooloso4 ?
[Edit: sorry @unenlightened - for forgetting you! :yikes:
Who else might I have offended? @Srap Tasmaner ? Everyone!?]
So, is it time to say "Enough is Enough!"?
Or perhaps just get through the Prologue???
I can understand people not wanting to continue.
This takes a huge chunk out of anybody's time when they have other priorities.
I think undertaking a close reading of the whole book is not feasible in a TPF discussion.
Perhaps just pick out important parts?
TBH, I am not strongly motivated and using the laptop has caused bits and pieces of me to complain.
I'm fine with leaving it here, as far as TPF is concerned.
I will stick around but don't want to take the lead.
Quoting Amity
A sensible approach.
Which parts would you, @Paine or @unenlightened or anyone consider the most important?
I had a quick scroll down this:
https://societyofepicurus.com/reasonings-on-thus-spake-zarathustra/
Do you think it might be useful as a discussion structure?
He raises several important issues which are worth discussing.
That question cuts across a number of themes that don't resolve into a single interpretation.
In the Divine Songs of Zarathustra, the language of the prophet being a gift is deeply established. An example from a verse:
One natural question to ask is where these gifts are coming from. The 'transcendent creator' is strenuously objected to by N, as a concept, in many places. One of the clearest examples comes right after he introduced the phrase 'death of god' in The Gay Science:
So, whatever attracted N to personifying Zarathustra wasn't for the sake of championing a competing metaphysic. My reading of the choice is that, despite trying to retrieve a Greek spirit not poisoned by Christianity, N did not think the effort would topple the edifice of Christian Platonism.
I am not sure how the above dynamic plays out in the messages by Zarathustra in TSZ as coming from outside the community, but the role of 'nature' is now the least understood thing. Nature is neither a machine (ala Newton) or a living being. We are further from distinguishing soul and body than our friends in the past. In this regard, it is interesting to consider the arguments of Plotinus against the 'gnostics' (as he called a number of groups he objected to). I can imagine Nietzsche agreeing with Plotinus that it is arrogant to say the world is naturally evil. But Nietzsche would accept that a struggle is underway, and man is at the center of it. And that sort of knocks at the back door of many syncretic themes where different mythological scenes were considered. Which comes around to this odd reference to matters Zoroaster:
Quoting The Secret Book of John
I am willing to keep reading and respond to interesting observations.
Let's see how many other people want something from the discussion.
I think unenlightened has brought a good dish to the potluck.
Your excellent and substantive response here I will need to take time to read.
Wonderful writing with appropriate and helpful linking,
I am learning so much more than I ever anticipated. :sparkle:
Quoting Paine
Absolutely.
The questions of @unenlightened stopped me in my tracks, return and think again. The discussion progressed from there. I edited earlier posts to include him and apologised for my lapse. I didn't mean to exclude others from the conversation.
I hope others are reading along and join in whenever they wish!
I started off not caring all that much about N...this discussion has changed that.
It's a thread for everyone. No leader required, apparently! :smile:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/734675
That seems right. Our view of ancient Greece was already infected with the Christianity that overtook the Romans. Freud went back to the Greeks, and claimed not to have read Nietzsche, (but that latter is not really believable). But where Freud was diagnosing the sickness of the Western psyche, Nietzsche was attempting the cure.
To read TSZ seriously is to subject oneself to a psychological treatment, rather than to analyse and consider some philosophical system. The clown destroys the dancer - and Nietzsche made dancing central to life. Musically, think Wagner, the romantic on steroids. Who is the clown? Perhaps the one who mistakes the treatment for a way of life.
Just because 3 is the magic number of religion and psychology, I'll add in Robert Graves (of I, Claudius fame) who came a little later again, and went back even further to a reconstructed Goddess religion, and a matriarchal social psychology. But that is for another thread to look at.
Z says:
This reminds us of Aquinas' claim that man is higher than the animals and lower than the angels.
Nietzsche accepts the idea of higher and lower beings but rejects the idea of a fixed order of beings ascending to the transcendent.
Later he says:
This, I think, refers back to Paul's promise of death and rebirth:
... it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body; there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body ... (1 Corinthians 15:44)
More generally, Paul's hatred of the body. As if we can by a leap of faith become spiritual bodies -s?ma pneumatikos.
I read some of the book linked (searching for your verse). A truly fascinating insight into translation.
A few Intro Notes (p8 of pdf):
1. The Gathas must be judged by themselves and in the light of their own contents.
5. It is the thought of the Gathas which is truly profound.
[...]
As I advance in years and in knowledge of life, I find deeper and deeper meaning in each verse.
"Veil after veil will lift - but there must be veil upon veil behind."
Re:
1. I have tried to do that with Z but have failed; such is the complexity of the work. So much so, that here I am reading Divine Songs by Zarathustra, the original.
5. So, it is the thought or Big Idea of N which is truly profound; not easily uncovered in the text itself.
Layered veils indeed.
Quoting Paine
Ever felt like a fly caught in a spider's web?
From the link, I found a verse starting " Him shall I strive to turn to us with songs...
[...] Songs of Devotion shall we offer Him"(pdf p301).
Similar to Z's saint and his gift of songs praising God and god.
And how does Z respond?
No songs for the saint.
But what will Nietzsche sing to us...? What will Zarathustra sing to the lower crowds...?
And will we/they dance to the tune we/they hear or think we/they hear?
Will we/they part laughing... like two boys?
Tell me how do 2 boys laugh, and at what, who?
Both seem pretty ominous.
But both concern words and their curious ways...
What do you mean by a 'psychological treatment'?
Something like CBT ?
Or Reading Therapy, Bibliotherapy - to change the way we think and behave?
Analysis still involved.
As to a 'philosophical system'. Hmm... :chin:
I suppose some would call Z a philosophical masterpiece...a hidden and creative system, perhaps?
Who are these "Nietzsche fans"? I do not think that Nietzsche scholarship has become a popularity contest. Or is it that rigorous scholarship is not the most popular way?
You started this thread asking:
Quoting Tate
Perhaps this just shows how out of touch I am with the "most popular way" of "contemporary Nietzsche fans" but I think a reading of TSZ should be based on the text, not speculation on about beings "exceedingly intelligent and technologically sophisticated", unless a reading of TSZ supports this idea.
Do you think an interpretation should be grounded in and supported by the text or do you think that this is not what an interpretation is about?
And in a certain order:
So, we are allowed to create our own interpretation of what Nietzsche means?
It's time to return to the text.
I've been away too long...
Tate, I didn't even click on the link. Who cares about the most popular interpretation?
Have you done your own yet?
I think not. You left this discussion you started as 'leader', remember? It had barely begun.
The post-human element might be important to consider at some point.
Where is it mentioned in Z?
"This place is filled with cringe jp fanboys, im officialy out. Nietszche wouldve been ashamed .."
The world is full of loonies. :joke:
'So it goes' - Kurt Vonnegut.
As Nietzsche would probably say to J Peterson if he was around:
There are some here, in a thread on reading Nietzsche, who are evidently doing their part in aiding his triumph.
"jp is Jordan Peterson? Someone obviously cannot read the room! Having officialy (sic) vacated is probably best for all.
What are you talking about?
More old-fashioned. I'm thinking something like an initiation ceremony, or what used to be called a 'happening' in my mis-spent youth. Take the aphorism for example; not an argument, or a definition, or anything familiar to a scholar, but closer to a mantra or a koan; something to fill one's head with to block habitual thoughts.
I could say that the book is visionary, and the secret to the interpretation of dreams is this: Everything in the dream is you.
The difficulty is always the same difficulty; to escape the Christian mindset that infects Christians, atheists, Buddhists, scientists, and Nietzsche fan-boys alike. We always tend to understand the text in terms of our culture, rather than our culture in terms of the text - we are always looking to explain to each other - to understand rather than over-stand.
No one wants to be killed by clowns, but that is what is happening right now, before our very eyes.
As always un, you make me return to questions I should have asked.
I skipped over the bit, now bolded:
Quoting unenlightened
I enjoyed the imagery but didn't know what you meant. It always amazes me how the/my brain seems to go blind and not give equal attention to all of the words. Why is that? Necessity or Pickiness?
Questions now arise: How did N make dancing central to life? What kind or form of dancing? To what tune? And why would any 'clown' want to destroy the 'dancer'? Who does the clown represent?
Where can this be found in the text?
Quoting unenlightened
Yes, I think this is right. It has the feel of a dream as both source and continuation.
To interpret this, to discover or uncover N's Big Idea, is to enter Z's world.
Almost a baptism by immersion.
Quoting unenlightened
So, reading as meditation. Giving whole attention to the text.
I wondered whereabouts in Z, there was mention of a clown, I hit search and found one.
This from the 4th and Final Part: 'On the Higher Man'.
'ponderipedes' - :lol:
Are serious readers of TSZ then 'wonderipedes'? :chin: :nerd:
Quoting unenlightened
Again, you turn my thoughts around. It is inevitable that as individuals our thoughts or values are part of our culture. Our minds are colored or stained by that.
However, if we try to understand something or someone else, there is a need to get over ourselves.
Go beyond what we think we know for sure...to examine values or what is worthwhile.
Reading a text can help us question the very culture which has helped us to grow as weeds or flowers.
We can get bogged down with our need to be understood or to understand. To justify by reason.
Understand - interesting elements of the compound word, figuratively and literally, starting here:
Quoting Etymonline
I thought you had invented a neologism! Imagine my surprise at:
Overstand -
Quoting Etymonline
So, what we are looking for is to relate better both to TSZ and Nietzsche...yes?
Between or among ourselves.
OK. I can't help but think of current state of UK politics...an overturn of previous values...getting murkier and deadlier by the day. I could go on, but I won't.
The traveller needs to read the map, to get where they are going if they are lost, and when they get there, they have no more use for the map. What I am saying, (and all I am saying, because I'm unenlightened not Zarathustra) is that there is nothing here to understand in the sense of there being a resting place even as a distant goal. I cannot and should not help anyone to understand what has been deliberately obscured. Stop thinking that anyone enlightened, unenlightened, Zarathustra, Nietzsche, Jesus, Hitler, L Ron Hubbard, or David Attenborough is the overman with the answers. Dance, die, return.
(nor even this Nobel laureate):
Are you talking to me?
An all-knowing 'overman' has never been, and never will be, that to which I adhere.
I don't think that any single philosopher has all the answers. How could they?
Here, we see a dabbing, dabbling or dappling of light and shade as we read and reflect...
A few pay more attention, going beyond.
To bring depth without darkness.
Dancers, creative and informative.
Aware and attuned.
It's why I hang around, even when I want to leave.
And might still yet...
To anyone who cares to listen, but more I'm withdrawing somewhat from talking to you, with that dangerous enticing "we". Time for me to be quiet and watch the exegesis of others.
I don't think there's going to be a lot of that forthcoming!
But we'll see...
Good talking to you!
I think the chapter, On The Afterworldly, addresses those questions:
The youthful quality shared between the Saint and Zarathustra is different from the image of the Child which has just been presented as the final metamorphosis of the Spirit. As a parodic echo of Paul, Z says it is time to put away childish things. The echo of Paul is also heard in the invoking of "This world" as the equivalent of the "tis Kosmos' which Paul expects to pass away.
I object to the following language in the article:
Quoting Hiram
This overlooks Nietzsche's rejection of 'natural' selection as a mechanical process as described by Darwin. It also does not appreciate that our generation cannot know the identity of future creators The overman is not a target but a process that is either underway or not. The rejection of deity as an escape from the world is not the start of the process but a phase of it.
I prefer Philip K Dick for my science fiction.
Also, he misspells 'Nietzschean' (a defect I corrected while quoting him).
I have from time to time thought about this.
Z comes down from the mountain. There is a political aspect to Nietzsche's work.* TSZ is, as the subtitle indicates, "a book for all and none". Herein lies the tension.
When speaking in the marketplace he spoke to all and none. But elsewhere he speaks to others:
Creators create for the sake of creating, not for the sake of the people, but people benefit from what is created.
Does he speak to us? And if so, where? One place is the the section "On Scholars".
We are not creators. We scholars are nut crackers, trying to crack TSZ.
As interpreters of TSZ we pull at the threads and weave together what is found in the text. But as with the rabble:
Z faults scholars for being equalizers. They do not create. All is grist for their mill. But it need not be that way for us. We can recognize and try to make clear to ourselves and to others what is great. We can attend to books without making the mistake of assuming that wisdom and knowledge of life can be found in books.
And if we are able to crack some nuts and tie some things together ought we to keep that secret?
*
Rather all of life is greeted with a "yes".
How does this person make sense of the Holocaust? Surely not as something that's acceptable. Something that's overwhelmingly painful, though. Accepting life even though it hurts.
This strikes me a narrow reading of Nietzsche , missing precisely what is most subversive about him. The ego for Nietzsche is the product of a play of tensions among drives. This differential, conflictual relation of the drives is irreducible, the necessary basis of creativity and becoming, and not something to be overcome. What is to be overcome is any concept of sainthood, unification of opposites, or any other ascetic ideal.
The Overmans affirmation of life is not an affirmation of the truth of life as the real, an acceptance of the burden of what presents itself. This is nihilism and negation masquerading as affirmation. The yes is a transmutation and dislocation.
Like the Nazi interpretation, there is a basis for it in Nietzsche's writings, the Over-human and the concept of the eternal return are closely linked.
Quoting Joshs
And yet another version of the Over-human is one who is capable of self-subversion: in other words, one who can overcome old rules and habits in order to grow into something new.
Quoting Joshs
Well, that would be bad. What's your take on the Over-human?
I think I'll start another thread on Nietzsche's aphorisms. Or if the Blue Meanies are gone, I'll continue the reading.
I would say tentatively the Overman is what we get after we have successfully achieved the transvaluation of all values , so that we eliminate all notions of the higher man. This includes any ideal that depends on a notion of progress toward truth or goodness or oneness.
I like it. It all eternally returns anyway. If you transcend yourself, that was always going to happen just the way it did.
It's no big deal.
Take a look:
"Relation To The Eternal Recurrence
"The Übermensch shares a place of prominence in Thus Spoke Zarathustra with another of Nietzsche's key concepts: the eternal recurrence of the same. Over the course of the drama, the latter waxes as the former wanes. Several interpretations for this fact have been offered.
"Laurence Lampert suggests that the eternal recurrence replaces the Übermensch as the object of serious aspiration. This is in part due to the fact that even the Übermensch can appear like an other-worldly hope. The Übermensch lies in the future no historical figures have ever been Übermenschen and so still represents a sort of eschatological redemption in some future time.
"Stanley Rosen, on the other hand, suggests that the doctrine of eternal return is an esoteric ruse meant to save the concept of the Übermensch from the charge of Idealism. Rather than positing an as-yet unexperienced perfection, Nietzsche would be the prophet of something that has occurred an infinite number of times in the past.
"Others maintain that willing the eternal recurrence of the same is a necessary step if the Übermensch is to create new values, untainted by the spirit of gravity or asceticism. Values involve a rank-ordering of things, and so are inseparable from approval and disapproval; yet it was dissatisfaction that prompted men to seek refuge in other-worldliness and embrace other-worldly values. Therefore, it could seem that the Übermensch, in being devoted to any values at all, would necessarily fail to create values that did not share some bit of asceticism. Willing the eternal recurrence is presented as accepting the existence of the low while still recognizing it as the low, and thus as overcoming the spirit of gravity or asceticism.
"Still others suggest that one must have the strength of the Übermensch in order to will the eternal recurrence of the same; that is, only the Übermensch will have the strength to fully accept all of his past life, including his failures and misdeeds, and to truly will their eternal return. This action nearly kills Zarathustra, for example, and most human beings cannot avoid other-worldliness because they really are sick, not because of any choice they made." --here
I actually like the last one best. The Ubermensch is like Kierkegaard's Knight of Faith: he has the grace to accept himself and the world as it is.
I think that what both Lampert and Rosen are getting at is that the expectation of the Übermensch sounds messianic.
In line with this I would argue that a) this can be regarded as another of Nietzsche's inversions of Christianity, and b) it is consistent with the eternal return in so far as a messianic figure is a recurring theme.
Quoting Tate
What does it mean to will something that will happen whether one wills it or not? Is it more than passive acceptance?
*Zarathustra, however, looked at the people and wondered. Then he spake thus:
"Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Supermana rope over an abyss.
"A dangerous crossing, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous trembling and halting.
"What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal: ?what is lovable in man is that he is an over-going and a down-going.
"I love those that know not how to live except as down-goers, for they are the over-goers."
What is the dangerous crossing?
This is Christian eschatology. It's Marxism. It's any kind of progressivism. The painful parts of the present gain meaning in that they're part of a bridge to a better world.
For me, the Holocaust is an all purpose symbol of the pain of life. I think one of the advantages of a divine source of purpose is that even if you don't understand why God would allow the Holocaust, through faith, you trust that there's a reason.
When we try to prop it up in our own, we don't have that luxury. The question is: does the Over-human work on any level to help with this?
I addressed this in a previous post.
Quoting Fooloso4
See above:
Quoting Fooloso4
Except the Übermensch might not arrive. Instead there may be the last man. But ...
Quoting Fooloso4
Unfortunately for him, this is a public forum. I will continue to post as I see fit.
So, you threaten to leave, come back, then claim to leave officially, then come back. You tell me you will not discuss anything with me, then respond to me.
I win? Does that mean you will take your ball and go home?
Why have you made this contentious and personal? Are you not able to engage in disagreement over a text without becoming petulant?
Pretty much
If you feel defeated it is only because you have defeated yourself.
See what Nietzsche says about one's best and worst enemies. You are your own worst enemy. It need not be that way. Zarathustra asks if you are up to the task.
The text I read says that no such help will be given toward that end. The writing seems to go to some effort to welcome the absence of such assurances. Zarathustra takes away from the community of men what he left intact for the Saint.
For myself, the celebration of war and struggle in Nietzsche's writings is hard to listen to on this side of the Shoah. I have no interest in washing his hands of the responsibility he bears for his rhetoric. It would be interesting to pour some blood into his cup in Hades and see what he says after all that has happened.
There is more than that to consider in his ideas. Your statement: "When we try to prop it up in our own, we don't have that luxury" is exquisitely Nietzschean. If "you" are not the overman, there is none.
I think his rhetoric is unfortunate, but a large part of the danger lies in taking what he says out of its philosophical context.
Heraclitus "the obscure", one of Nietzsche's spiritual progenitors, said:
This is echoed in Nietzsche's will to power. It is not simply a matter of man against man, it is the way of all of nature, all of life.
We should also look at what he says about one's best and worst enemies, struggle, contest, and conflict. It is not simply.
What is natural does seem to be the central issue. And how we talk about that seems to be the most contested thing.
Do you mean what is natural is contested or the contest of different philosophies or different interpretations of Nietzsche?
I was thinking of Nietzsche's idea of our present science as something that was available but problematic as a vehicle of certain knowledge. So, the natural was not presented as outside of the approach of established disciplines but not included either as a final word.
So, it is not clear whether the doubt about science is to be understood as a rejection of all that it produces or something else. In view of the fact that Nietzsche introduces a competing "science" not based upon a refutation of the other kind, but on the question of completeness, it is difficult to say what that is or could be.
Nietzsche's views on science are something I have not given enough attention to. A few scattered thoughts as to where attention should be given:
The relation between knowledge , truth and life.
Not simply science but the different sciences.
Determinism and eternal return.
Each of those thoughts merit exploration.
I don't want to hijack this thread to discuss them, especially since it would call for reading much more than Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
I will try to put together an OP on the matter. I am more than a little uncertain, however, if such a dive into primary texts will interest the Forum.
That is an uncertainty that I confront every time I start and continue to put time and effort into a thread based on a primary text. There are always more readers than there are members who participate.
I encourage you to do it.
Me too. Just found an old HB copy of TSZ, and read some pages which were very interesting.
C J Jung says, sometimes we need to adopt the principle of enantiodromia on interpreting his writings.
In that case, war should be translated to peace, overman to underman or underdog etc. Will to power is very likely had been modified from original Will to Life by either Niezsche's sister (by request from the authority for her financial gains) or some other authority to justify the political situation later in the country after his death.
I ignore all these negative, controversial and blurry parts of his writings, and only focus on the positive, energetic, existential and metaphorical parts which reads refreshingly genius and powerful.