Which passages argue that 'humanity should be bent toward creating great human beings?'

Nietzsche went to much effort to demonstrate that such a measure was tied directly to sets of values that were not shared amongst all.

In Schopenhauer as Educator?

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?

I think that references outside of the TSZ text throws light upon what is going on there. But I take your point that I am asking everyone to read all of Nietzsche to understand some part of it.

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.

the Saint is a person who has experienced some sort of ego death and has blended with all life. — Tate

Can you provide a textual reference?

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.

That is some kind of glitch I cannot remove. No link there.

still germane in the text — Paine

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

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:

Can you provide a textual reference? — Fooloso4

" In a remarkable passage from ‘Schopenhauer as Educator’, Nietzsche describes his understanding of the saint in the following terms:

"And so nature at last needs the saint, in whom the ego is completely melted away and whose life of suffering is no longer felt as his own life – or is hardly so felt – but as a profound feeling of oneness and identity with all living things: the saint in whom there appears that miracle of transformation which the game of becoming never hits upon, that final and supreme becoming-human after which all nature presses and urges for its redemption from itself. It is incontestable that we are all related and allied to the saint, just as we are related to the philosopher and artist; there are moments and as it were bright sparks of the fire of love in whose light we cease to understand the word ‘I’, there lies something beyond our being which at these moments moves across into it, and we are thus possessed of a heartfelt longing for bridges between here and there.Footnote1"
-- McPherson 2015

By the Geneology of Morals, his view of the Saint has changed. He now says:

"So far the most powerful human beings have still bowed worshipfully before the saint as the riddle of self-conquest and deliberate final renunciation. Why did they bow? In him – and as it were behind the question mark of his fragile and miserable appearance – they sensed the superior force that sought to test itself in such conquest, the strength of the will in which they recognized and honored their own strength and delight in dominion: they honored something in themselves when they honored the saint. Moreover, the sight of the saint awakened a suspicion in them: such an enormity of denial, of anti-nature will not have been desired for nothing, they said to and asked themselves. There may be a reason for it, some very great danger about which the ascetic, thanks to his secret comforters and visitors, might have inside information. In short, the powerful of the world learned a new fear before him; they sensed a new power, a strange, as yet unconquered enemy – it was the “will to power” that made them stop before the saint.Footnote16" -GoM

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? — Amity

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.

How do you relate these commentaries to the clear rejection of Christian belief put forward by Nietzsche? Do you have a set of quotes by Nietzsche that supports these ideas?

How do you relate these commentaries to the clear rejection of Christian belief put forward by Nietzsche? — Paine

I think Nietzsche enjoyed the position of anthropologist. In that role, he was free to take whatever beliefs and values a society holds as mythology, which was in line with his epistemology. In this, he was the forerunner of people like Jung and Joseph Campbell, who sought to go beyond rejecting Christianity to placing it in a psycho-historical framework.

In other words, yes, he rejected Christianity. He condemned Christians. But then, he condemned just about everyone at some time or another.

The ideal of the saint is not strictly about Christianity. It's more in line with some kind of esoteric mysticism.

Do you have a set of quotes by Nietzsche that supports these ideas? — Paine

? My last post had two quotes from him. One from Schopenhauer as Educator, and one from GoM.

Yes, I see how the Genealogy of Morals quote ties into the 'ethics of power.'
But from where do you see the process being about 'producing great human beings?'

But from where do you see the process being about 'producing great human beings?' — Paine

That's early Nietzsche in Schopenhauer as Educator.

Per McPherson:
"According to Nietzsche in ‘Schopenhauer as Educator’, what is needed in order to justify our existence is to provide suffering with a higher purpose or meaning sufficient to make life worth living. However, doing so requires that human beings transcend their animality, since for animals as mere animals all suffering must remain ‘senseless suffering’ without any higher significance.Footnote6 What is distinctive about being human is precisely the capacity to transcend our animality and ‘turn the thorn of suffering against itself’ by providing it with a higher sense of significance.Footnote7 Above all, Nietzsche claims, this higher sense of significance is provided by those true human beings who ‘are no longer animal’: viz., the philosopher, the artist, and the saint.Footnote8 These three figures stand as the highest human exemplars precisely because of the ways in which they are able to utilize suffering for the sake of great achievements that go far beyond what is possible for non-human animals. In doing so they provide suffering with a ‘higher significance’ as well as a perspective from which life in the world can be justified. Thus Nietzsche contends: ‘It is the fundamental idea of culture, insofar as it sets for each one of us but one task: to promote the production of the philosopher, the artist and the saint within us and without us and thereby to work at the perfecting of nature’.Footnote9 Likewise, he says: ‘Mankind must work continually at the production of individual great men – that and nothing else is its task. […] How can your life, the individual life, receive the highest value, the deepest significance? […] Certainly only by your living for the good of the rarest and most valuable exemplars’.Footnote10"

The ideal of the saint is not strictly about Christianity. It's more in line with some kind of esoteric mysticism. — Tate

Thanks for the reference. What characterizes the saint is the absence of ego:

In him the ego has melted away ...(Part 5)

but I do not see the connection with esoteric mysticism.

There are some interesting comparisons with the saint is Z.

(Emphasis added):

So the first danger in whose shadow Schopenhauer lived was—isolation. (Part 3)

I can now give an answer to the question whether it be possible to approach the great ideal of Schopenhauer's man "by any ordinary activity of our own." In the first place, the new duties are certainly not those of a hermit; they imply rather a vastcommunity, held together not by external forms but by a fundamental idea, namely that of culture; though only so far as it can put a single task before each of us—to bring the philosopher, the artist and the saint, within and without us, to the light, and to strive thereby for the completion of Nature. (Part 5)

The saint in Z identifies himself as a hermit. His duty is only to himself.There is no mention of artists or philosophers or culture. Perhaps what changed is Nietzsche's ideas about the value of the melting away of the ego. In the later works the self is of central importance.

Well, that collection of thoughts is at odds with Nietzsche saying the following about will as expressed by Schopenhauer:

Aftereffects of the most ancient religiosity. - Every thought·
less person supposes that will alone is effective; that willing is
something simple, a brute datum, underivable, and intelligible
by itself. He is convinced that when he does something-strike
something, for example-it is he that strikes, and that he did
strike because be willed it. He does not see any problem here;
the feeling of will seems sufficient to him not only for the
assumption of cause and effect but also for the faith that he
understands their relationship. He knows nothing of the mechanism
of what happened and of the hundredfold fine work that
needs to be done to bring about the strike, or of the incapacity
of the will in itself to do even the tiniest part of this work. The
will is for him a magically effective force; the faith in the will
as the cause of effects is the faith in magically effective forces.
Now man believed originally that wherever he saw something
happen, a will had to be at work in the background as a cause,
and a personal, willing being. Any notion of mechanics was
far from his mind. But since man believed, for immense periods
of time. only in persons (and not in substances, forces, things,
and so forth), the faith in cause and effect became for him the
basic faith that he applies wherever anything happens-and this
is what he still does instinctively: it is an atavism of the most
ancie11t origin.
The propositions, "no effect without a cause.'' "every effect
in tum a cause appears as generalizations of much more
limited propositions: "no effecting without wiling"; "one can
have an effect only on beings that will"; "no suffering of an
effect is ever pure and without consequences, but all suffering
consists of an agitation of the will" (toward action. resistance,
revenge, retribution). But in the pre-history of humanity both
sets.of propositions were identical: the former were not gen-
realizations of the latter, but the latter were commentaries on
the former.
, When Schoenbauer assumed that all that has being is only
a willing, he enthroned a primeval mythology. It seems that he
never even attempted an analysis of the will because, like
everybody else, he had faith in the simplicity and immediacy of
all willing-while willing is actually a mechanism. that is so
well-practiced that it all but escapes the observing eye.
Against him I posit these propositions: First, for will come
into being an idea of pleasure and displeasure is needed. Second, when a strong stimulus is experienced as pleasure or displeasure, this depends on the interpretation of the intellect
which, to be sure, generally does this work without rising to
our consciousness: one and the same stimulus can be interpreted as pleasure or displeasure. Third, it is only in intellectual
beings that pleasure, displeasure. and will are to be found; the
vast majority of organisms has nothing of the sort. — The Gay Science, 127, Translated by W. Kaufman

It has been noted by Kaufmann and others how this doesn't square with the claims about N's idea of the will to power.

Right. By the time he writes TSZ, he no longer approves of the Saint's isolation. In TSZ, the Saint refers to both himself and Z as anchorites, which is a religious hermit. He says people don't trust anchorites, which is mentioned in GoM.

Z, of course, proceeds on down to the world of humans. From now on, I'll say "human" instead of "men" because I think it's clearer.

That's a fascinating quote, and I totally agree with it, but I don't see how it relates.

It relates because it undercuts the language of purpose regarding the production of great people in the other Schopenhauer quote.

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."

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:

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:

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

Yeah. No one has actually read it cover to cover.

In juvenescence, I was taken in by a phrase on the first page, which in my translation was rendered "Hail, Great Star!", which I adopted as an occasional morning prayer.

But on revisiting it in my adultery I find a glowering self-righteous lunacy. The pretence that the sun needs Zarathustra, his eagle and his snake is nauseating.

I would be pleasantly surprised if this thread manages to reach the flies in the marketplace.

As a reminder:

Hard to categorise, the work is a treatise on philosophy, a masterly work of literature, in parts a collection of poetry and in others a parody of and amendment to the Bible. Consisting largely of speeches by the book's hero, prophet Zarathustra, the work's content extends across a mass of styles and subject matter. — Tate

...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. — Paine

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. — Fooloso4

***

I would be pleasantly surprised if this thread manages to reach the flies in the marketplace. — Banno

I'm trying to work out how long it will take. I joined 2 days ago.
To read the book only: The Cambridge pdf starts at p49 and ends p312.
So far, I've reached Prologue 3, starting on p51. We are on p4 of the thread.
I've a feeling the others will up the pace fairly soon...

As already noted by @Paine 'book discussions are difficult to carry out in this forum.'

Although I've been on the point of giving up, even this early on, the other 3 main readers seem to have enough knowledge, experience and enthusiasm to see it through. Or at least help others who try.
Some might drop in and join at the relevant section...where others drop out...

Time will tell...

I think we beat the saint to death, poor guy. Let's move on.

:up:

I await your guidance and questions... :nerd:

The next section introduces the Superman. I'm sure everyone will have their own notion of what that is.

Recall that the exchange with the Saint sets up this introduction. The world is full of suffering. Humans are ever afflicted and the idea of God made it more bearable. God cared. God was testing us, or we were paying for sins, or it was the devil and God could make things right. We were caught up in a really important cosmic drama and it was worthwhile to stick it out and see how the novel ended.

But now God is dead.

Zarathustra spares the Saint from disillusion but tries to shake the community of men from the dream. The key element is the contempt that kept the dream alive:

"Behold, I teach you the overman. The overman is the meaning of the earth! Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the meaning of the earth! I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do no believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! Poison-makers are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying and poisoned themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so let them go.
"Once the sin against God was the greatest sin; but God died, and these sinners died with him. To sin against the earth is now the most dreadful thing, and to esteem the entrails of the unknowable higher than the meaning of the earth.
"Once the soul looked contemptuously at the body, and then this contempt was the highest: she wanted the body meager, ghastly, and starved. Thus she hoped to escape it and the earth. Oh, this soul herself was still meager, ghastly, and starved: and cruelty was the lust of this soul. But you, too my brothers, tell me: what does your body proclaim of your soul? Is not your soul poverty and filth and wretched contentment? — TSZ, chapter 3, translated by W Kaufmann

The totality of the Christian God was toxic from the beginning of its reign. Now that it has lost its grip, we are not able to just pick up where we left off. The cruelty the soul has become accustomed to consuming through the centuries is still expecting its next meal. The appeal to something people lack is difficult to convey. The overman is an expectation of an unknown future that is supposed to replace the previous experience of certainty. Zarathustra tries the following:

"They have something of which they are proud. What do they call that which makes them proud? Education they call it; it distinguishes them from goatherds. That is why they do not like to hear the word 'contempt' applied to them. Let me then address their pride. Let me speak to them of what is most contemptible: but that is the last man. — TSZ, chapter 5, ibid

:up: I'm reading an essay about how the Overman relates to the eternal return. It's good.

The next section introduces the Superman. I'm sure everyone will have their own notion of what that is. — Tate

The first proclamation of Z to the marketplace crowd (gathered to be entertained by a tightrope walker).

“I teach you the overman..." ( note 3)

What on earth must he have looked or sounded like?
At the end of section 2, Z had spoken to his heart in amazement that the saint hadn't heard the news that "God is dead!"
Why would the saint have heard any news? And how would Z have, being isolated?
He received a message - an internal voice as a result of his meditations, or as a disciple of the Sun?
Now, Z brings the 'Good News' from up high, down to the people, evangelical style.

Note 3:

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

What is the meaning of "God is Dead"?
An idea in the mind of Z? Or a feeling in his heart/soul?

I teach you the overman..." ( note 3)

What on earth must he have looked or sounded like? — Amity

The scene is dream-like to me. They think he's talking about the tight-rope walker: the over man.

Why would the saint have heard any news? And how would Z have, being isolated? — Amity

True, that doesn't make much sense.

What is the meaning of "God is Dead"?
An idea in the mind of Z? Or a feeling in his heart/soul? — Amity

Good question. I'm not really sure.