I agree that there is a lot of emphasis on the righteous getting help when needed. The greater part of the book of Job is devoted to whether Job can know his status in that regard by himself. His 'friends' keep telling him he must have sinned. The wager is on whether that kind of self-knowledge is alive or only an illusion of good fortune.

How does the struggle of Job fit in with this objective?

I am curious what you see as more 'objective' in the Gospel texts that countervails against the excessive 'subjectivity' you see expressed by Paul.

Kierkegaard, after all, emphasized that the experience of the Single Individual was where the struggle for one kind of life against another was happening.

Yes, your effort in these matters is evident.

The recognition of the reference connecting modern theories of influence to ancient texts is illuminating.

Jews have always had an idea that fixed societies are inherently evil, as if you're closer to God if you're detached from cities and able to dwell in the desert, free from the corruption that inevitably creeps 8nto city life. — Tate

This idea was put forward in The Protocols of Zion.

It is a society of righteous people where outside behavior is apparently pretty rigidly constrained. It's kind of strange vision. — Moses

I hear that. When I read the Sermon on the Mount, the call for not reacting to violence with violence strikes me as particular answer to a specific situation, not an adequate response to all situations. In many articulations of Christian belief, this issue keeps coming up with the whole range of being comfortable with being a soldier of God or renouncing War as such.

It was part of the humanist focus, with or without religion, but as the emphasis on social existence is the key domain, as opposed to in relationship with God, awareness of effects of action has become more important as a form of social ethics. — Jack Cummins

If it is true that the two domains are not given to us before thinking about them, all theological expression is also a 'social' ethics, a 'conjunction' with particular consequences. Maybe it would be good to decouple the tendency to see the creator as like us or vice versa from the agency of a god as a source. The Timaeus told a story of the creator as a sort of Cabinet Maker with a well-equipped shop. Aristotle presented us with the idea of an Unmoved Mover who we must reflect in our nature by definition but is not like us in most respects.

Regarding Kant, perhaps all 'histories of philosophy' approaches are their own 'conjunction.' But I don't want to argue for that as a necessary conclusion. That would presume an understanding that I do not have.

Yes, that level of interconnection can be heard in both Spinoza's and Nietzsche's versions of 'determinism' and their rejection of an anthropomorphic creator.

Wanting to know how to live makes wanting to know more than curiosity. I agree with I like sushi saying:

‘Ethical aspects of philosophy’ IS ethics. — I like sushi

Consider how the first part of Spinoza's Ethics is a cosmological explanation of our conditions.

There is a distinction between what is pursued as a description of life and the meaning and values we find there, but their "conjunction" is not that of two self-sufficient domains. How those domains are distinguished is one of the primary features of a 'philosophy.'

In Nietzsche, for example, the will-to-power is seen as a fundamental property of organic beings that informs us of a source for 'moral' behavior. The idea of that source is not a collapse of all distinctions between the two domains. They do become necessarily linked to each other through the description.

I read Nietzsche as more of a Monist in that regard. We are stuck with our world and that attempts to make it otherwise kick the ball down the road.

What I meant to say in my comment was to push back on the idea of philosophies being discrete points of view when there are many substantial disagreements about what is being said through their exposition. Different 'philosophies' do not pose problems worthy of solving to the same degree. To the degree they can be encapsulated into a simple thesis, they do not ask anything of us.

Did he ever demand his teachings be treated as authoritative or was he just writing letters with his ideas that were later established as authoritative by the compilers of canon? — Moses

In both letters to the Corinthians, he presents the Spirit he has introduced to the congregations as higher than the law required for participation in Jewish communities.
Your question goes to the larger result of Paul only knowing Jesus through visions but claiming to be a witness at the same time.

As facts are not always straightforward at all it seems to make sense that some are drawn to different philosophies — Jack Cummins

It is not straight forward. But it can be said that events happen and attempts to understand how and to what extent a reality is shared while it is happening is the work of different philosophies.

In the example of Nietzsche, for instance, he is read by some to argue that events are ultimately arbitrary formations and by others as a rejection of that idea because Nietzsche rejects Kant's separation of subject and object that would be able to say what an accident is.

Which prompts me to wonder if "different philosophies" are like available locations from which to take common objects into view.

I appreciate your pragmatic spirit.
It seems to me that what counts as a 'benefit' is one of the issues that is most fiercely debated.
I don't want to say there is no world of shared values that could stand as the premise for a shared world. But I am not able to provide the basis for it either.
Where do the facts begin?

If one were able to separate the effects of a philosophy from the 'truth' for the sake of evaluation, wouldn't all efforts toward that end have to be verified by separating actual causes from illusory ones?

I think Aristotle would say this proposal is an infinite regress.

Some keep it in a library, others lend it to friends, etc. but the point is you don't need the book anymore — Agent Smith

I have some books I have read many times over the years. I still have not "grokked" them. In some cases, I am losing ground.

This is pretty good:

Very interesting.
Needing a reason for a reason not indicting all attempts toward those ends.
(Your comment went well beyond that observation).

It is interesting that Zelensky was not asking the 'bloggers' to shut up but chill with the absolute immediacy element.

The information war includes these bloggers.

I am curious if the aim was always to attack in force up north after trapping so much of Russia's best prepared units down south by blowing the bridges, or if it was just opportunity and the ability to move resources north quickly. Guess we won't know until things settle down. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The Russians did move resources south after all the fanfare. As you say, it is hard to know who is fooling who until the deal goes down.

Do you see a light at the end of this tunnel? — Agent Smith

Well, I do not share the ready optimism of Leibniz, but he did show that all alternatives do not need to be cancelled for something to be viable. The limits of negation apply to all. Which is sort of one of your points.

Does it not matter who is putting forth a dogma and what it is?
It sounds like you want an unconditional boundary.

Zelensky acknowledged some success in recent operations but added this:

Zelensky also appealed to "some bloggers," as he put it, "not to complicate the task for our army with your haste. Please do not report the specific details of the defense operation earlier than the official representatives of our state."

As an avid consumer of information, I heard that as calling for less demand for the last five minutes. Guilty, as charged.

Before anybody tries to prove anything with it, wasn't Leibniz saying that everything that exists must have some reason for being here because the thing that exists could easily not exist with another set of conditions?

What does PSR refer to?

Euclid did pretty well with the second method. That another set of premises is possible doesn't make fidelity to the one's adopted unsatisfactory.

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.

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.

It is not simply a matter of man against man, it is the way of all of nature, all of life. — Fooloso4

What is natural does seem to be the central issue. And how we talk about that seems to be the most contested thing.

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? — Tate

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 therefore I am', a subjective declaration by Descartes. — ArielAssante

Was not the point of the declaration to remark upon how the experience is given as fact? An aspect of the given reality no more or less 'real' than the other stuff we are stuck with?

The message from Hicks I hear relates to how Nietzsche said that one has to be careful who one decides is an enemy because one elevates them by fighting them. So, by fighting Christianity he became stuck with it.

The only true choice is to look into the face of reality, see nothing which resembles ourselves, and then decide that in spite of that, something, somewhere must resemble ourselves, or it is to recognize that all of reality is hostile to life and that we are a mistake in the eyes of reality that will one day be corrected. — 64bithuman

I am not sure 'reality' has been backed into a corner on this matter. The little we understand is not written against a promise that we should have received in some agreement. We have drafted those promises entirely on the basis that it would be great if they were in effect.

Alternatively, the message could have been:

I wonder if the element of differentiating between 'objective and subjective' puts the cart before the horse when looking at earlier views of the divine.
The desire to win the favor of gods is closely linked to not wanting to piss them off either. Shamans, priests, and smarty pants of all stripes, point to advantages of accepting that certain agents are calling the shots. The traditions that give one a map of this kind are not propositions or credos so much as markers of feedback loops. The desire to know the environment we are operating in is prior to what we call natural or supernatural.

I object to the following language in the article:

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 — 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).

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? — Amity

I think the chapter, On The Afterworldly, addresses those questions:

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. — Thus Spoke Zarathustra, translated by Walter Kaufman

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.

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

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.

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

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.