:up:

I'd like to see the intervention in discussions he's participating in stop.

There's a double standard then. Moderators can be as insulting as they like, but any response is deleted.

Is that really the kind of site you want to run?.

I wasn't involved in the discussion. My concern is that this is becoming a habit on Xtrix's part: to delete comments in a discussion he's taking part in.

It's ridiculous that someone as insulting as Xtrix would delete a joking response to the deluge of insult Xtrix lays out.

Is this really ok with you folks?

:up:

That is one powerful statement — Amity

Yea, Nietzsche's amazing.

A new word for me. Care to explain what it means? — Amity

"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

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.

A little backdrop on the saint:

"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

So what exactly is your point? — apokrisis

That's it's a virtue to remain flexible. If we've been influencing the climate long enough that we concealed a 2000 year old cooling trend, then cutting down on fossil fuel CO2 emissions, while very important, won't be enough to address the problem. We'll need to start scrubbing at some point if we want to control our affect on the climate. We need a new energy source. It may be that burning fossil fuels to get us to a new energy source and scrubbing technology is more intelligent than just limiting CO2 emissions.

Why are you another one arguing this kind of “whataboutism” — apokrisis

I'm not a what-about-er. What's clear to me is that we need new perspectives to deal with the issue. Obviously what we're doing now isn't working.

What are you on about. — apokrisis

I see that. Yes. That the climate has been headed toward an insolation minimum in the Northern Hemisphere is old news. This is the startling part:

But this natural cooling has gone unregistered due to unprecedented warming caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, the paper explains.

See here.

Tate

Jeez, not another climate denier who can’t read or think straight.

The problem isn’t with those who have a religious faith in the scientific consensus, it is with idiots who can’t even parse the evidence being presented. — apokrisis

Let's try to stay civil.

What are you on about? In which narrative could humans be considered responsible for pushing the Earth father from the Sun these past 2000 years? — apokrisis

The narrative you quoted says we've been affecting the climate for 2000 years. There's research that says it's actually 6000-8000.

The study also revealed that for the last 2,000 years Earth has actually been in a natural cooling period in terms of its position relative to the sun.

But this natural cooling has gone unregistered due to unprecedented warming caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, the paper explains.

I want to point out that this is not the narrative most people are familiar with. Most people think human contributions to climate started 200 years ago, not 2000.

This is one of the many ways the narrative is in flux. I think we should welcome challenges to the official view. In that spirit we have the resilience to live with changing narratives. When we become rigid and treat the science in a religious way, science stands to lose credibility.

I'm sure you agree.

This is an essay about the saint. It requires university access, which I'll have tomorrow. If you already have it, enjoy!

Even in the spring draft the objectives weren't met. So easier said than done. — ssu

Why not? Do people just flee to the Eurasian steppes and live with camels to escape the draft?

Or do they dress like Cossacks and get so drunk their hearts stop beating?

I'm very familiar with Russian life, as you can tell.

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. — Amity

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.

I prefer to make my own bubbles. Sorry. — god must be atheist

There's not much CO2 in that.

The Enlightenment did not advocate turning our back on mankind. It was a turning away from God to man — Fooloso4

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.

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. — Fooloso4

Sure. It's the fallout from the death of God that Nietzsche addresses, though.

And here we have an Enlightenment theme:

The saint says:

"Go not to men, but stay in the forest! Go rather to the animals! Why not be like me—a 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.

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.

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."

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?

He comes to teach the overman. — Fooloso4

Right. :blush: :up:

Something else worth mentioning from The Semantic Conception of Truth:

In fact, the semantic definition of truth implies nothing regarding the conditions under which a sentence like (1):

(1) snow is white

can be asserted. It implies only that, whenever we assert or reject this sentence, we must be ready to assert or reject the correlated sentence (2):

(2) the sentence "snow is white" is true.

Thus, we may accept the semantic conception of truth without giving up any epistemological attitude we may have had; we may remain naive realists, critical realists or idealists, empiricists or metaphysicians – whatever we were before. The semantic conception is completely neutral toward all these issues. — Michael

:up:

The death of God is an historical event.
— Tate

What is the role of religion without God? — Fooloso4

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.

I'm sure you don't think Zarathustra comes down the mountain to teach atheism. That would be contrary to the text.

I am asking you and anyone else who might be reading. — Fooloso4

It's the eternal return.

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. — Fooloso4

The death of God is an historical event.

It's the eternal return.

a mutually dependent relationship between the source of life and light
— Tate

In what way is the sun dependent on that on which it shines? — Fooloso4

Are you asking me? Or saying that it's not dependent?

... his own being, divided by high and low: the eagle and the snake.
— Tate

Not divided but both high and low. — Fooloso4

There's obviously a distinction between high and low. It's a division.

Why Zarathustra? Or perhaps the better question is, why the return of Zarathustra? — Fooloso4

What are your thoughts?

I didn't read that anywhere. What ancient religion? — Amity

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.

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.

@Michael

These can be roughly characterized as artificially constructed languages in which the sense of every expression is unambiguously determined by its form.

This allows him to get away with just using sentences as truthbearers. In the real world, we don't have that luxury.

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.

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?

That's odd. Translated by Adrian Del Caro, edited by Del Caro and Robert Pippin — Fooloso4

Is that the translator you prefer?

I like what he says about the State in this one. — NOS4A2

Wa ha ha haaaa!

I can't access that website. Which translator is it?

Why do you advocate moral principles if you think that morality is "only a encumbrance to life"? — Babbeus

Some aspects of life need squashing.

Do you think we should feel free to be randomly violent and brutal with random people? — Babbeus

No

And if you think we should avoid it, isn't it a moral principle you are advocating? — Babbeus

Yes