That you feared for Pence’s life only proves your propensity for imagination. — NOS4A2

I did not fear for Pence's life. I, along with most of us, learned of it after the fact. It was those who acted to prevent the mob from inflicting further damage to life and property who feared what the mob was doing and would do if left unchecked.

You seem incapable of understanding the meaning of the term 'threat'. Are you claiming that Pence was not in harm's way? That he was not in danger? That his security acted unreasonably in trying to protect him? That because nothing happened to him there was no need to protect him? Do you think they were there for selfies with Pence?

I think that what both Lampert and Rosen are getting at is that the expectation of the Übermensch sounds messianic.

In line with this I would argue that a) this can be regarded as another of Nietzsche's inversions of Christianity, and b) it is consistent with the eternal return in so far as a messianic figure is a recurring theme.

... to will the eternal recurrence of the same ... — Tate

What does it mean to will something that will happen whether one wills it or not? Is it more than passive acceptance?

An “actual threat” that didn’t turn into an actual hanging wasn’t much of an actual threat, I guess. — NOS4A2

Instead of guessing try thinking. There is a difference between a threat and the fulfillment of a threat. Threats can be averted. Do you really not understand the difference?

The fact that there was not an actual hanging does not mean there was not an actual threat. The fact that the mob was not able to get to Pence does not mean that there was not an "actual threat".

So, wisdom means being wise, which means having realized one’s full potential? — Hello Human

There are other capacities involved in realizing full human potential. Not everyone's potential reaches the full human potential.

The primary question is: What is the good life? If we cannot answer that we cannot address the question of what makes it good. The problem is, the question of what makes it good assumes an answer to the more fundamental question of what that life is.

Rather than attempting to feed us pablum in the guise of "science", you would do well to acknowledge that the question is aporetic. It is clear, however, that you think the question has been adequately answered, and you are here to provide us with that answer, via Hartman. And as a bonus, free of charge, you include your "college course" on ethics. You do note the importance of questions, but only in order to provide your "scientific" answers.

I don’t get it. — NOS4A2

Yes, we keep telling you that!

I give your credit though, not everyone can make a molehill out of a mountain.

It’s very tedious. — NOS4A2

And yet on and on you go. Like your dear leader, you like to hear yourself talk. And like him, you continue to demonstrate your cluelessness. It is not about "a single riot at the capital".

The feds and the 4th estate spent years pushing a Democrat hoax — NOS4A2

Thank you for this example of what is at issue. The feds and the 4th estate, the government and the press, complicit in a hoax against our supreme dear leader Trump, and their persecution of his henchmen. Unfortunately you are not alone in your support of autocracy.

For all your talk of freedom your are blind to just how imperiled it is by MAGA.

But all this talk is tedious and changes nothing.

How quickly we forget. — NOS4A2

How quickly you forget. There was no insurrection when Trump was elected. There was no attack on the nation's Capital. Clinton did not attempt to undermine the electoral process.

Once again, to pretend that all this is politics as normal is disingenuous, and, I should add, dangerous.

Contesting or disputing an election is nothing. — NOS4A2

This goes far beyond contesting or disputing an election. To pretend that all this is politics as normal is disingenuous. This is the first time in US history there was not a peaceful transfer of power.

So "wisdom" is the state of being a wise person, which is having achieved human excellence ? — Hello Human

The term "state" can be misleading. It is not a condition. It is the realization or actualization of a capacity.

What's he done with the contents? — Michael

Best case: he flushed them down the toilet.

Sheds light on his claim that "people are flushing their toilets 10 times, 15 times".

...using the full power of the US government against his political opponents — NOS4A2

Reducing what is happening to a contest of political opponents is indicative of the depth of the problem. There is nothing ordinary about what is going on. By trying to undermine the legitimacy of the electoral process the MAGA republicans are not simply the opponents of the Democratic party and anti-Trump republicans , they are an opponent of the US government itself.

It is not “Fuck Joe Biden” that you find comforting, it is "Fuck US Democracy".

What does one expect or hope for from such arguments?

Can the existence or non-existence of God be determined by argument?

Or is it a matter of finding reasons for or against believing?

Or is it a matter of the possibility of God?

What hangs on the existence or non-existence of God?

I cannot and should not help anyone to understand what has been deliberately obscured. — unenlightened

I have from time to time thought about this.

Z comes down from the mountain. There is a political aspect to Nietzsche's work.* TSZ is, as the subtitle indicates, "a book for all and none". Herein lies the tension.

When I came to mankind for the first time, I committed the hermit’s folly, the great folly: I situated myself in the market place.
And when I spoke to all, I spoke to none. But by evening my companions were tightrope walkers, and corpses, and I myself almost a corpse.
But with the new morning a new truth came to me; then I learned to say: “What do the market place and the rabble and the rabble noise and long rabble ears matter to me!”
You higher men, learn this from me: in the market place no one believes in higher men. And if you want to speak there, well then! But the rabble blinks “we are all equal. (232)

When speaking in the marketplace he spoke to all and none. But elsewhere he speaks to others:

You creators, you higher men! One is pregnant only with one’s own child.
...
Unlearn this “for,” you creators; your virtue itself wants that you do nothing “for” and “in order” and “because.” You should plug your ears against these false little words. (236)

Creators create for the sake of creating, not for the sake of the people, but people benefit from what is created.

But whoever would be a firstling should see to it that he does not also become a lastling! (237)

Does he speak to us? And if so, where? One place is the the section "On Scholars".

For this is the truth: I have moved out of the house of the scholars, and I slammed the door on my way out. Too long my soul sat hungry at their table; unlike them, I am not trained to approach knowledge as if cracking nuts.(98)

We are not creators. We scholars are nut crackers, trying to crack TSZ.

They are skilled, they have clever fingers; why would my simplicity want to be near their multiplicity? Their fingers know how to do all manner of threading and knotting and weaving, and thus they knit the stockings of the spirit!

As interpreters of TSZ we pull at the threads and weave together what is found in the text. But as with the rabble:

For human beings are not equal: thus speaks justice. And what I want, they would not be permitted to want! (99)

Z faults scholars for being equalizers. They do not create. All is grist for their mill. But it need not be that way for us. We can recognize and try to make clear to ourselves and to others what is great. We can attend to books without making the mistake of assuming that wisdom and knowledge of life can be found in books.

And if we are able to crack some nuts and tie some things together ought we to keep that secret?



*

REAL PHILOSOPHERS, HOWEVER, ARE COMMANDERS AND LAW-GIVERS; they say: "Thus SHALL it be!" They determine first the Whither and the Why of mankind, and thereby set aside the previous labour of all philosophical workers, and all subjugators of the past--they grasp at the future with a creative hand, and whatever is and was, becomes for them thereby a means, an instrument, and a hammer. Their "knowing" is CREATING, their creating is a law-giving, their will to truth is--WILL TO POWER. --Are there at present such philosophers? Have there ever been such philosophers? MUST there not be such philosophers some day? . . . (BGE, 211)

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.

Be clearly, lucidly written; no conflicting interpretations, no confusion as to what is intended — Art48

It could only be as clear and lucid as those to whom it is addressed.

A funny and revealing story from Genesis:

God clearly tells Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge. We are not told what Adam tells Eve, but we do know what she tells the serpent. From God to Adam to Eve there are significant changes in what was said to have been said. In addition to Eve's changes, the serpent ads another layer of interpretation.

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?

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.

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

He raises several important issues which are worth discussing.

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.

Have you done that? — Amity

No.

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.

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.

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)

The fine tuning argument amounts to saying that if things were different they would not be as they are. It does not preclude the existence of a very different universe, a universe without us and our attempts to prove the existence of a god who has created a just so world for us.

No links, unless pointing to texts like Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Ethics and Politics count as links.

Look at the relation and distinction between nature and custom or logos and nomos.

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?

Something smells fishy here or is it just me? — Agent Smith

It's just you. These things were discussed but by other names.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

Again, the problem I have with Foolos4 is switching between meanings of "is" in a single sentence. You shouldn't say, "3+1 is 4" AND "3+1 is not 2+2" — Real Gone Cat

The point is that it should not be taught that 2+2 "is" 4. That is the point of my seemingly contradictory or paradoxical statement. 3+1 "is" 4 is generally unproblematic when it is understood that what is meant is "is equal to", but when it is taken to mean something like "the same as" or "one and the same" confusion can arise. 3+1 is not the same as 2+2.

My second post, which was a response to you:

This is commonly understood to mean two plus two equals four and not two plus two is the same thing as four. 3+1 "is" 4 in the sense of equals 4 but not that 3+1 and 2+2 are the same thing. We could do without "is": 2+2=4, 3+1=4, 2+2=3+1. — Fooloso4

The speaker is then going to have to explain, "Oh, I meant splitting 4 things into 3 and 1 is different from 2 and 2". — Real Gone Cat

You mean like when I said?:

If we are given 4 donuts and I take 3 and give you one, you might complain that is not fair. Would you be satisfied if I defended this by saying that since 2+2 is 4 and 3+1 is 4 then 3+1 is 2+2? Or would you say, as I did above that:

3+1 "is" 4 but 3+1 "is not" 2+2 — Fooloso4

I suspect that what is really at issue can be found in remarks such as the following:

Wow. I encounter so many people on TPF who do not know basic math, it's striking. — Real Gone Cat

And:

You want to find mysticism here. — Real Gone Cat

And again to someone else:

If you still want to introduce mysticism into math — Real Gone Cat

And yet again:

Except the mystics on TPF. You're always searching for the woo. — Real Gone Cat

At least with regard to this discussion you seem to see what is not there and fail to see what "is".

unless you want to make a point to read chronologically. — schopenhauer1

Not by choice, but as an undergrad we had to take a sequence of courses that lasted all four years, beginning with the pre-Socratics through toAlthoug the 20th century using mostly primary texts.

Although the program director had written a book on the pre-Socratics, which of course we had to use, his bias was in favor of historical development - later philosophers correcting earlier mistakes. I never bought into that, but I do think there is a benefit in reading the history using primary texts. Even though such an approach, within the time constraints just touched the surface and skipped over a lot, it was a good start, but not the only or even for everyone the best approach.

In my opinion much better than Copleston's or Russell's histories of philosophy, which I have a very low opinion of. Or the approach that focuses on "problems in philosophy", that is, ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, and so on.

The problem is always being in the "prelude" state.

What I recommend, and I think most of us actually do, is to start somewhere and then move back and forth, expanding the picture, filling in gaps, and correcting the picture.

Neither.

You point to some of the influences on Schopenhauer (Plato, Platonism, mystic Judaism, and much more that you did not mention). If the advice is to first read Schopenhauer in order to read Nietzsche, which is clearly not your advice since you recommend stopping with Schopenhauer, then since, as you point out, there are other things to read that shed light on Schopenhauer, the same advice, again not yours, to read Schopenhauer as a prelude to Nietzsche, could be extended to reading other thng as a prelude to reading Schopenhauer.