A closer look at Zoroastrianism is likely to reveal other connections. — Fooloso4

Have you done that?

So, N has gone beyond the original prophet? — Amity

Yes and no. It is the metamorphoses of the spirit (Holy Ghost, Hegel). I will hold off saying more until we get there.

Have you done that? — Amity

No.

Yes and no. It is the metamorphoses of the spirit (Holy Ghost, Hegel). I will hold off saying more until we get there. — Fooloso4

OK. The suspense is almost killing me...let me know if when I pass it by?

No. — 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.

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. — Banno

I agree. Nevertheless, he's one of the most important and influential thinkers of his time. Not everyone's cup of tea, though.

I'm reading an essay about the eternal return, so I'll be doing my own thing. Thanks for your generous participation. — Tate

: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!?]

@Paine@Fooloso4 @unenlightened and anyone else following.

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.

So, is it time to say "Enough is Enough!"? — Amity

I will stick around but don't want to take the lead.

Perhaps just pick out important parts? — Amity

A sensible approach.

Perhaps just pick out important parts?
— Amity

A sensible approach. — Fooloso4

Which parts would you, @Paine or @unenlightened or anyone consider the most important?

@Paine @Fooloso4 @unenlightened and any others interested!

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?

Do you think it might be useful as a discussion structure? — Amity

He raises several important issues which are worth discussing.

So, N has gone beyond the original prophet? — Amity

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:

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. — ibid from link.

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:

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?' — 109, ibid from link.

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 didn’t tell you about.
If you want to know about them
You will find the information in the Book of Zoroaster. — 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:

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. — 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:

Before I go out for the day. Something serious to consider.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/734675

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. — Paine

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.

Who is the clown? — unenlightened

Z says:

Mankind is a rope fastened between animal and overman – a rope over an abyss. (7)

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:

There are manifold ways and means of overcoming: you see to it! But only a jester thinks: “human being can also be leaped over.” (159)

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 -sōma pneumatikos.

The most popular way the Overman is interpreted by contemporary Nietzsche fans is post human , particularly the post human god.

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: — Paine

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. — 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 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. — unenlightened

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 ... — Tate

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:

Anybody have time for a reading of TSZ? — 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?

Do you think it might be useful as a discussion structure?
— Amity

He raises several important issues which are worth discussing. — Fooloso4

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

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?

Jesus. :lol:

Although, it's not just here. Elsewhere in a discussion about the same topic:

"This place is filled with cringe jp fanboys, im officialy out. Nietszche would’ve been ashamed….."

The world is full of loonies. :joke:

Many of the responses are not invested in finding something for themselves in the text. — Paine

'So it goes' - Kurt Vonnegut.

As Nietzsche would probably say to J Peterson if he was around:

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 Schopenhauer’s was—I say "Non legor non legar” — Neitzsche, Ecce Homo, Why I Write Such Excellent Books

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?