In the general discussion surrounding how Nietzsche developed his views, his willingness to develop lines of thought that do not fit with each other seems to be something he was more comfortable with than his readers. When I read him, I hear the following challenge:

"Who gave you a promissory note that assures you that this all makes sense? Talk to Hegel, if that is your bag." — Paine

Now that made me smile :cool:

The Prologue to TSZ has been described as "thick." There are lot of ideas in there. This is just to explain why the saint declares that he's a "bear among bears." Nietzsche is referring to the spiritual stature of the saint, though this is not strictly a Christian spirituality. — Tate

If the Prologue is 'thick' with lots of ideas does that mean that once mastered, the rest of the book is easier to get through? A walk in the park :wink:

I agree it is worth spending as much time as necessary to understand the foundations.
Grateful for all your help.

I understood the 'bear' bit as pointing to a spirit of nature but isn't that what Z is about?
No, it's about overcoming that, right? :chin:

I think that references outside of the TSZ text throws light upon what is going on there. — Paine

Yes, I understand that.
I've been there and done that with other book discussions.
Trouble is when there are too many and people start arguing the toss.
But whatever...
Do what needs to be done for clarity :pray:

still germane in the text — Paine

Fixed. Removal of . between 'germane' and 'in'.

My question about: "Which passages argue that 'humanity should be bent toward creating great human beings?'" is still germane.in the text of TSZ. The text seems more focused upon how to survive difficult conditions. — Paine

Thanks.
The 'germane' link isn't working.

As interesting as all this is, can I ask that the thread sticks to the title and OP, TSZ: Reading?
If you want to talk about N, possibly start another thread?

Oh, I missed that.
It's beautiful. Soothing :sparkle:

***

Part of 'Aretha Franklin: A Tribute to the Queen of Soul at the Proms'. Amazing :fire:
1 hr 50 mins long. Wow. Incredible.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001bdx5/bbc-proms-2022-aretha-franklin-a-tribute-to-the-queen-of-soul

In Aretha Franklin’s six-decade career, she won 18 Grammys and was the first woman inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Celebrating what would have been the singer’s eightieth birthday, the BBC Proms pay tribute to a true icon.

Thank you.

In political discussions, we have a much lighter touch on vitriol and inflamed tempers — fdrake

This is just a general comment, not related to the current dispute of which I know nothing.

However, when complaints were made concerning the Ukraine Crisis thread.
The response was similar.
Political threads are not so heavily moderated due to their passionate nature.

I argued that it was all the more needed.
To nip in the bud and to stop any escalation.
I still think that way...

The purpose of the incantations in the Phaedo is to charm away the fear of death. The saint is praising his god. — Fooloso4

The author's own repetition of the expressed incantations makes us stop and think.
Just as Plato's does...to charm the readers to think again...
Or I'm just making up a load of garbage to fill in my time.
The déjà vu is strong :nerd:

I take this to be about the difference between God as universal and the god who is his god. But I don't know that the saint sees them as different. It may be an expression of closeness, of unity. — Fooloso4

Still a comfort blanket, the removal of which would destroy him or his sense of (well)being.
Z is being kind, not wishing to leave him empty and vulnerable.

The saint might not see them as different but the author might.
And the readers are made aware by the clever changes.

I dunno.
I'll leave it there.

I can't thank you enough for putting me through this hell :nerd:
Seeing N in a new light :sparkle:

That is one powerful statement. :fire:

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’. — Tate

Oh, thanks for that, Tate. It looks like my interpretation chimes with the latter.
I should have known that there would be an early and a late Nietzsche.
Reminds me of my attempted reading and confusion with Wittgenstein.

Damn them for changing :wink:

cosmodicy — Tate

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

OK but you didn't address my question:

This made me think of our 'Plato's Phaedo' discussion.

The repetition and singing as incantation; myths and magic.

Why the difference between the lines, even if it seems they are saying the same thing? — Amity

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.

What I noticed here was the change from God to god.
The difference in context and circumstance; between time ('When') and person (''With)

1. 'God', the general God: The Big External Spirit in the Sky (Heaven). The Ideal.
The religious inspiration for the saint's creativity.
'When...' - He makes them with feeling, then sings in Faith. Hallelujah! Praise the Lord!
Singing as Incantation, like in a church. Invoking magic charms.

2. 'god', here. is his god. A more personal god.
The saint is human with a wide range of emotions, from joy to sadness, anger even?
'With....' - In the midst of 'suffering', he talks/prays directly to his particular god, special to him alone.
This personal relationship comforts him.
His Belief is his protection against the lower parts of him, his demons. Help me in my hour of need.
Without God, he would be vulnerable. That is why he praises God. He might also think that unless God receives gratitude, He will become angry and desert him.

That is one way of looking at it.

There is for the saint no burden to be carried or to be alleviated from. — Fooloso4

The burden of being human still remains, even if he might delude himself with magic charms.
The saint has Pride in being above others he looks down on.
Physical and Spiritual combined.

I'm still not exactly sure what 'the gift of the overman' is?
— Amity

Good question. It should become clearer as you read on. As with many things in Nietzsche there is a reversal of Christian teachings. See, for example, 1 Corinthians 12 on the gifts of the holy spirit. — Fooloso4

For present and future reference, to consider how this is reversed by Nietzsche:

7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,[a] and to still another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines. — Bible Gateway - Concerning Spiritual Gifts

Strange thing happened there. I didn't bold the last sentence.
It could be spooky or just that the next heading was in bolds:

Unity and Diversity in the Body

That is not how I hear this:

With singing, weeping, laughing and growling I praise the god who is my god. — Fooloso4

How do you hear it?

I'm still not exactly sure what 'the gift of the overman' is? — Amity

OK, getting there.

Reading continues > Section 3

And Zarathustra spoke thus to the people:
“I teach you the overman. Human being is something that must be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?

Footnote :
“Ich lehre euch den Ubermenschen.” Just as ¨ Mensch means human, human being, Ubermensch ¨means superhuman, which I render throughout as overman, though I use human being, mankind, people, and humanity to avoid the gendered and outmoded use of “man.” Two things are achieved by using this combination. First, using “human being” and other species-indicating expressions makes it clear that Nietzsche is concerned ecumenically with humans as a species, not merely with males. Secondly, expanding beyond the use of “man” puts humans in an ecological context; for Zarathustra to claim that “the overman shall be the meaning of the earth” is to argue for a new relationship between humans and nature, between humans and the earth. Overman is preferred to superhuman for two basic reasons; first, it preserves the word play Nietzsche intends with his constant references to going under and going over, and secondly, the comic book associations called to mind by “superman” and super-heroes generally tend to reflect negatively, and frivolously, on the term superhuman.
— Cambridge pdf p51

:up:
An excellent summary of your considered attitude and practice to a close reading of any text.
Sprinkled throughout many discussions in a most helpful teaching/learning process. Thanks.

Just for you, rosebud :wink: :hearts: :flower:

There is here a series of questions that begins almost as soon as they meet.
[...]
Neither is asking the question to the other, for how would they know? — Fooloso4

I hadn't thought of that. It seemed like a dialogue. So, is this internal self-talk - or a writer's technique to help the reader better know the characters?

The saint does not want to give anything to man but rather wants something taken away. I think this refers to salvation from sin, the three metamorphoses of the spirit (page 16), and the burden of the camel. — Fooloso4

OK, you have the advantage of having read this before. I think this is a book which you can read over and over and still find something new or revealing.

This is the first time I've noticed this aspect of the saint — Tate

The beauty of discussions like this; new ways of looking and discovering.
Thanks for starting the thread :up:

The saint ask Z what he brings "us" — Fooloso4

The royal 'we'? Those 'above' in the spiritual realm. Or the saint and his natural companions.

Z says he has nothing to give the saint but leaves quickly before he takes something away (page 5). This might be a clue to the second part of the book's title:
A Book for All and None". — Fooloso4

What's the link between the 'clue' and the title?

To them our footsteps sound too lonely in the lanes

'Lonely in the lanes'. I like that.
Mankind as a general collective can be suspicious or scared to be separate.
We (the unroyal) mingle in the marketplace.
Not wanting to be alone along a narrow way; on a parallel single line as in a swimming pool.

And if at night lying in their beds they hear a man walking outside, long before the sun rises, they probably ask themselves: where is the thief going?

We cling to each other in our beds in darkness. No light shining. We can imagine dark deeds outside.
We build separate family homes for shelter and protection. We guard our property. The material.

If Z were to tell the saint the news that God is dead would be to steal something from him. Why would Z give the gift of the overman to mankind but not to the saint? — Fooloso4

Yes, it would deny the saint his comfort blanket; his faith is his protection. Against what?
Men? The World? He wants his Garden of Eden.

Why would Z give the gift of the overman to mankind but not to the saint? — Fooloso4

I'm still not exactly sure what 'the gift of the overman' is?

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.

This made me think of our 'Plato's Phaedo' discussion.
The repetition and singing as incantation; myths and magic.

Why the difference between the lines, even if it seems they are saying the same thing?

There is for the saint no burden to be carried or to be alleviated from. The god who is his god is not one Z wants to take away. To take it away would be to leave him empty. — Fooloso4

Before someone's belief/faith is questioned, attacked or removed, there would need to be something to take its place. Our minds can't say empty forever...

It is time for you to stop all of your sobbing
Yes it's time for you to stop all of your sobbing, ohh ohh ohh
There's one thing you gotta do, to make me still want you
Gotta stop sobbing now, stop sobbing now
Yeah, yeah, stop, stop, stop, stop

It is time for you to laugh instead of crying
Yes it's time for you to laugh so keep on trying, ohh ohh ohh
There's one thing you gotta do, to make me still want you
Gotta stop sobbing now, stop sobbing now
Yeah, yeah, stop it, stop it, stop it, stop it

Each little tear that falls from your eyes
Makes, makes me want
To take you in my arms and tell you
To stop all your sobbing

There's one thing you gotta do, to make me still want you
Then there's one thing you gotta know, to make me want you so
Gotta stop sobbing now, stop sobbing now
Yeah, yeah, stop it, stop it, stop it, stop it

Gotta stop sobbing now, gotta stop sobbing now
Stop it, stop it, stop it, stop it
Gotta stop sobbing now, gotta stop sobbing now
Stop it, stop it, stop it, stop it
Songwriters: Ray Davies. For non-commercial use only.

Zarathustra replied. “Why did I speak of love? I bring mankind a gift.”
“Give them nothing,” said the saint. “Rather take something off them and help them to carry it – that will do them the most good, if only it does you good — Cambridge pdf p50

Thinking aloud.

Z asks the saint 'Why...?
Did he mean "When did I speak of, say anything about love?" - Love of material stuff?
Or is it short-hand for "Why do you think it's love I carry?" - In his heart?
Does this mean Z has no love for fellow human beings, even if he wants to return as one?
He only wants to be a Giver. In control as a master to a slave?

The saint seems more spiteful and selfish than spiritual.
To lessen the human burden ( material or spiritual) by helping them carry it?
How would that do anyone most good, to be dependent?
And why would Z want that kind of burden, when he wants to enlighten?

“Why,” asked the saint, “did I go into the woods and the wilderness in the first place? Was it not because I loved mankind all too much?
Now I love God: human beings I do not love. Human beings are too imperfect a thing for me. Love for human beings would kill me.” — Cambridge pdf p50

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.

The separation of body and mind; the physical and the spiritual.
But they are both required...

As the footnote indicates:
“Ich liebe die Menschen” means literally “I love human beings." — Fooloso4

Interestingly it continues:
 “Ich liebe die Menschen” means literally “I love human beings.” Earlier translators ignored the
ecological framework in which Nietzsche wrote Zarathustra by using expressions like “man.”
The prologue establishes a prevailing semantic field, a framework in which human beings, animals, nature and earth interact or should interact as never before.

[emphasis added]

In the second section,
— Tate

What page, where? — Amity

OK. Found it. You're using this translation.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1998/1998-h/1998-h.htm#link2H_4_0004

We can copy this freely, I'm going to close some of the gaps:

2.
Zarathustra went down the mountain alone, no one meeting him. When he entered the forest, however, there suddenly stood before him an old man, who had left his holy cot to seek roots.

And thus spake the old man to Zarathustra:

“No stranger to me is this wanderer: many years ago passed he by. Zarathustra he was called; but he hath altered.
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.”

Zarathustra answered: “What spake I of love! I am bringing gifts unto men.”

“Give them nothing,” said the saint. “Take rather part of their load, and carry it along with them—that will be most agreeable unto them: if only it be agreeable unto thee!
If, however, thou wilt give unto them, give them no more than an alms, and let them also beg for it!”

“No,” replied Zarathustra, “I give no alms. I am not poor enough for that.”

The saint laughed at Zarathustra, and spake thus: “Then see to it that they accept thy treasures! They are distrustful of anchorites, and do not believe that we come with gifts.
The fall of our footsteps ringeth too hollow through their streets. And just as at night, when they are in bed and hear a man abroad long before sunrise, so they ask themselves concerning us: Where goeth the thief?
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?”

“And what doeth the saint in the forest?” asked Zarathustra.

The saint answered: “I make hymns and sing them; and in making hymns I laugh and weep and mumble: thus do I praise God.
With singing, weeping, laughing, and mumbling do I praise the God who is my God. But what dost thou bring us as a gift?”

When Zarathustra had heard these words, he bowed to the saint and said: “What should I have to give thee! Let me rather hurry hence lest I take aught away from thee!”—And thus they parted from one another, the old man and Zarathustra, laughing like schoolboys.

When Zarathustra was alone, however, he said to his heart: “Could it be possible! This old saint in the forest hath not yet heard of it, that GOD IS DEAD!”
— TSZ - Gutenberg Thomas Common trans.

OK. Got that.
I'll just have to check the bottom of the pdf pages for the actual book page in the translation we're using.

OK. I think I'll leave this discussion now.
It's becoming a nightmare to follow.

In the second section, — Tate

What page, where?

If you only refer to the Cambridge book pages, I have difficulty finding the quotes in the Cambridge pdf.
I'm using the pdf, so I've been referencing that.

Another spoiler: In Christianity God must become man. For Nietzsche man must become a god. — Fooloso4

It doesn't spoil if it helps me understand where I'm at with my questioning if that makes sense.
So, anything you got is more than :100: welcome!

I have read and recommend both. (See, I am not against secondary sources) You might recognize his name from his commentaries on Plato. — Fooloso4

:smile:
BTW, I am not looking at secondary sources as I make my way through this.
I'm enjoying it as a newcomer. Like reading the Short Stories but I don't need to guess the author :wink:
I don't even want to know about the author.
This is a first for me.
Not looking things up.

So bless me now, you quiet eye that can look upon even an all too great happiness without envy!
Bless the cup that wants to flow over, such that water flows golden from it and everywhere carries the reflection of your bliss! — TSZ

Z is praying to the Sun, his spiritual 'God'.
He wants nature's supernatural blessing so that he can be a 'disciple' and carry the word, in all its shining glory. Or something.

Behold! This cup wants to become empty again, and Zarathustra wants to become human again.”
– Thus began Zarathustra’s going under — TSZ

Like the son/Sun of 'God', Jesus the man, he is part of a Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit ?
3 in One? Or One in Three?
Come down to Earth, to enlighten but is there also a devil to deal with?

This is intriguing me more than I thought it would.

Good point! — Fooloso4

Yay, I'm cooking with gas :fire:
*keeping an eye on energy consumption and cost*

Like you, I must go down

@Fooloso4
What does this remind you of?

Plato's “I went down yesterday to the Piraeus..."
The symbolism of going from Athens (the light, "above") to the port (lowly commercialism).
The division.

Spoiler alert :wink:
Haven't got to that bit yet...

Thanks, this sounds like a good yarn :cool:

Thank you :up:

Here he enjoyed his spirit andhis solitude and for ten years he did not tire of it. But at last his hearttransformed, – one morning he arose with the dawn, stepped before the
sun and spoke thus to it:
“You great star! What would your happiness be if you had not those
for whom you shine?
For ten years you have come up here to my cave: you would have tired
of your light and of this route without me, my eagle and my snake.
But we awaited you every morning, took your overflow from you and
blessed you for it. — Amity

When I read this, I wondered why he had first sought solitude...it seemed to me that he was like any other world-weary hermit and seeker of peace and enlightenment.
Then having had his fill, his heart moved again to find some purpose.

He sees the sun as having a sense of purpose; to bring meaning to him, his eagle and snake.
What would the sun do without them?
Probably just shine on...no matter.
Z wants to share light, like the sun, with those human beings he had left behind...
Let them be enlightened by him, a sage? and the sun, nature.

Behold! I am weary of my wisdom, like a bee that has gathered too
much honey. I need hands that reach out.

He wants to reach out and share with those whose hands reach out? The needy?
Or does he need to have human hands so that he can reach out? To give.

Nature again. From the spiritual to the mundane.

Zarathustra, the creator of an ancient religion, — Tate

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

:up:

Your thoughts so far?

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. — Tate

:up:

You already posted the first chunk, so:. questions: — Tate

I wasn't intending to take over. In fact, I'm not even a Nietzsche fan :yikes:
Not sure I will follow through. Just a few suggestions, as requested in OP.
Sorry I only posted part of: Z's Prologue 1 (p49 pdf) for reasons of comparison.
Didn't realise how much was left.

The remainder:

So bless me now, you quiet eye that can look upon even an all too great
happiness without envy!
Bless the cup that wants to flow over, such that water flows golden from
it and everywhere carries the reflection of your bliss!
Behold! This cup wants to become empty again, and Zarathustra wants
to become human again.”
– Thus began Zarathustra’s going under. — TSZ

Wow. Right in there with the questions! I haven't read it properly, so haven't a clue.
(I've been out and about...not on here all the time, even if it seems like that :wink: )

No first impressions...?

I'm not sure about copy and pasting the whole book in chunks.
Probably copyright issues...
Perhaps just refer to bits of the chunks, meaningful to the reader?

I suggest looking at other attempts to get a bearing on what you want to discuss. The difference between responding generally to a group of ideas and closely reading texts is large. — Paine

Excellent advice!

I've had a look at other book/paper discussions.
The OP is important to set out the aims and the way forward.
Here is a pretty formal example:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3617/book-club-being-time-by-martin-heidegger/p1
and then there's this more laid back:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/922/sellars-empiricism-the-philosophy-of-mind/p1

So, @Tate - over to you.
How do you want to proceed?

I have a couple of translations and I can't get through this book. I don't know that I would call it 'unreadable' as the critic Harold Bloom did, but I did find the work's grandiose parodic style tedious and unappealing. I think I got about 1/4 of the way through. I'd be interested to read other people's reactions to it and find out why they like it. — Tom Storm

I have similar problems with its readability. I've given all my copies away!
A book discussion might be helpful if well organised and roughly scheduled.
There is so much of it to get through - it's quite a project.
See Contents pp7-9 of http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/LoserLit/zarathustra.pdf

I've been looking at how it can be broken down into segments.
I could only find this:
https://www.litcharts.com/lit/thus-spoke-zarathustra/zarathustra-s-prologue *
But that's only a couple of pages at a time. It would take forever...
How many pages can a person chew through, in what interval of time,without experiencing indigestion?
It depends on the reader but for a discussion involving more than one...any suggestions for pacing?

* It might be seen as a bit of a cheat and not everyone approves of using secondary sources.
For various reasons. @Fooloso4 can reel them off!
However, if it gives newbies a heads-up, then all to the good...I think.

I agree that it is probably best not to refer to them in-discussion.
I've been guilty of that previously and it just muddies the waters. Terribly.
Also can make you lazy and not think for yourself!