What on earth must he have looked or sounded like?
— Amity
The scene is dream-like to me. — Tate

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.

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. — Tate

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! — Amity

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.

Zarathustra is handing them a set of values. — Tate

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. — 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.

If we erase the distinction between soul (psyche) and body, the quest for the Ubermensch implies eugenics. — 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:

making use of Nietzsche — Tate

interpretations of Nietzsche combined with the new science of eugenics — Tate

This is quite different than your claim that:

If we erase the distinction between soul (psyche) and body, the quest for the Ubermensch implies eugenics. — 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:

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.

is not even about Nietzsche.

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. — Fooloso4

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. — Tate

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. — 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?

Since eugenics is anathema to us, specifically because of Nazism, we don't think of Nietzsche as favoring it. — Tate

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 promises—surely 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. — 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.

How does eugenics follow from erasing the distinction between soul (psyche) and body? — Fooloso4

If we erase the distinction between soul (psyche) and body, the quest for the Ubermensch implies eugenics. — Tate

Yes, this also puzzled me. Perhaps there is a missing link, or two, in the logic?

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. 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.

I'm on the verge of leaving this pop stand anyways. — Tate

Are you talking about this thread or TPF?
Why to either?

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. — Tate

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'm not all that interested in proving it to you when all you have to do is look it up. — Tate

I am asking you what Nietzsche said. You made the claim. Are you unable to back it up?

I would be pleasantly surprised if this thread manages to reach the flies in the marketplace. — Banno

The beauty of reading from a pdf is its searchability.

On the Flies of the Market Place

Flee, my friend, into your solitude! I see you dazed by the noise of the
great men and stung by the stings of the little — Cambridge pdf p82

I think it is important to note that Nietzsche's ideas are potentially explosive. — Tate

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.

Oh, indeed...

The market place is full of pompous jesters – and the people are proud of their great men! They are the men of the hour.

The beauty of reading from a pdf is its searchability. — Amity

In the old days we used a thing called the Contents. It remains in vestal form in your PDF.

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. — Fooloso4

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.

The irony is, those who praise Nietzsche are pushing against his spirit.

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?

But it does mean people feel the need to address it ... — Srap Tasmaner

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.

People took Wittgenstein for a behaviorist — 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.

The irony is, those who praise Nietzsche are pushing against his spirit. — Banno

What do you see as his spirit and in what way do those who praise him push against it?

The irony is, those who praise Nietzsche are pushing against his spirit. — Banno

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.

Nietzsche is himself something to overcome. — Tate

Or overlook. What I've read reads like the work of a very smart incel.

Or overlook. What I've read reads like the work of a very smart incel. — Tom Storm

That's says more about you than it does about Nietzsche, I'm afraid.

Nietzsche is himself something to overcome. — Tate

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.

That's says more about you than it does about Nietzsche, I'm afraid. — Tate

I agree and it was cheap shot.

This video explains how I feel about that, but you have to watch the whole thing.

@Tom Storm

Or overlook. What I've read reads like the work of a very smart incel.
— @Tom Storm

That's says more about you than it does about Nietzsche, I'm afraid. — 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?

What page are you folk up to?