God is dead means several different tbut related hings for Nietzsche. — Fooloso4

I will mention one: the death of God on the cross. But unlike the "good news" of Christianity, the resurrection, there is only the "news" that God is dead. But this too is good news.

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?" — Tate

That is not the Enlightenment theme. The Enlightenment did not advocate turning our back on mankind. It was a turning away from God to man

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.

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]

“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...

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.

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?

Z asks the saint 'Why...? — Amity

There is here a series of questions that begins almost as soon as they meet. The first question "why' question:

“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?

Z replied:

“Why did I speak of love? I bring mankind a gift.”

Neither is asking the question to the other, for how would they know?

Because the saint loves mankind too much he turns away from man. He can't bear what man is. It seems as if what he loves is the ideal of man. Because he loves mankind Z turns toward man with a gift.

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.

The saint ask Z what he brings "us". 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".

He also says:

They are mistrustful of hermits and do not believe that we come to give gifts.
To them our footsteps sound too lonely in the lanes. 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? (4-5).

If Z were to tell the saint the news that God is dead would be to stea something from him. Why would Z give the gift of the overman to mankind but not to the saint? I think it has something to do with what he says right before he asks what Z has brought us:

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.

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.

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

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...

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

So, is this internal self-talk - or a writer's technique to help the reader better know the characters? — Amity

I take it to be a rhetorical device. When, for example, Z says: "Why did I speak of love? I bring mankind a gift." he is not simply asking a question but answering it.

I think this is a book which you can read over and over and still find something new or revealing. — Amity

Yes, it is deep. Always more to be discovered or uncovered.

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

Z says he brings mankind a gift. But there is a tension here because the saint distances himself from mankind. The saint says: "They are mistrustful of hermits and do not believe that we come to give gifts."

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

What Z has to teach is for all, but, as is the case with the saint, for none. Put differently, who does "us" refer to? Whose ears? If not for certain ears and no one can hear or understand what Nietzsche has come to teach then although addressed to all it is for none.

We guard our property. — Amity

Given the context, our property seems to refer to our beliefs.

... it would deny the saint his comfort blanket... — Amity

That is not how I hear this:

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

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.

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

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

How do you hear it? — Amity

As a deep felt celebration of his life and god.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

That is one powerful statement. :fire:

That is one powerful statement — Amity

Yea, Nietzsche's amazing.

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

:up:

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

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

What I noticed here was the change from God to god. — Amity

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.

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.

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. — Tate

With regard to the question of justification we should look back to Paul:

... they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. (Romans 3:24)

Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 5:1).

The claim is that we suffer because of sin, but Jesus freed us from sin.

In the Birth of Tragedy Nietzsche says:

... the existence of the world is justified only as an æsthetic phenomenon. (5)

This should be understood in light of his claim that one should make of the the self a work of art. See, for example, The Gay Science 107.

Still a comfort blanket, — Amity

What motivates the saint to live a life in praise of his god?

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. (4)

It has something to do with the desire for perfection. I think you may be right, to the extent that the imperfection of man can be troubling.

I am not sure about McPherson's contention that the treatment of the Saint was a function of changing views N had of the 'ethics of power.' The view of Christianity as a suicide pact was developed through earlier and later views as depicted in The Gay Science, which includes writings before and after TSZ. So the following statement regarding saints strikes me as applicable whether the agency of the figure was something that served a narrative or not:

On the critique of saints.- To have a virtue, must one really
wish to have it in its most brutal form-as the Christian saints
wished-and needed-it? They could endure life only by
thinking that the sight of their virtue would engender self-
contempt in anyone who saw them. But a virtue with that
effect I call brutal. — The Gay Science, 150, Translated by W Kaufman,

The Saint doesn't represent Christianity in general. For N, the Saint is a person who has experienced some sort of ego death and has blended with all life.

Early on when N was suggesting that humanity should be bent toward creating great human beings, the Saint was at the top of his list. That changed over time. He began to see the Saint as as one who abandons earthly life, so the taint of Christianity is on him, but he's still not representative of the whole religion.