Which folk?

Ha! He's certainly a sacred cow. I like him best as a de-contextualized purveyor of intermittently amusing zingers.

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.

Which folk? — Paine

The ones in the marketplace?

Nice dodge.

:wink:

The best way to read him is as satire, an antecedent of Shaun Mcauliffe.

Nice dodge. — Paine

A skill I picked up from Beyond Good and Evil.

Students are often the harshest voice against their teachers.

Timely and helpful:

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. — 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.

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. — 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:

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!

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?

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

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

the flies in the marketplace. — 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?

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

What do you mean by that?

That it all looks a bit like this...

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. — Banno

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...

What page are you folk up to? — Banno

Why do you ask? Do you want to join in?
On my backburner is the comment from Paine:

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: — Paine

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/733690

Kaufman translation, Ch 3 and 5.

:lol: So true :up:

Zarathustra descended from the mountain with nothing, — unenlightened

Nothing?

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. — Banno

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.

What do you think he found up there?

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,

This is my way, where is yours?

What do you think he found up there? — unenlightened

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!

And you think that is Nietzsche's message to the world?

And you think that is Nietzsche's message to the world? — unenlightened

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?

Amity What do you think he found up there? — unenlightened

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.

(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...

The Prologue alone is proving a challenge... — Amity

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.

What do you think? — Amity

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. — 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 ...

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. — unenlightened

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

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 Zarathustra’s 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. — Zarathustra of Nietzsche, the Imaginary Savior by Thomson Dablemond | Feb 21, 2022

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? — unenlightened

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

You must want to burn yourself up in your own flame: how could you become new if you did not first become ashes — Cambridge pdf p93

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?

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. — 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?

having established a definite equivocation on the reliability of Zarathustra, — unenlightened

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.

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. — Fooloso4

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?

In Z's first speech, "On the Three Metamorphoses", the spirit first becomes a camel. — Fooloso4

OK. Now I must continue; to pass through the eye of a needle...