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.

The saint might be a symbol for clergymen in general. — Tate

More generally, those who by turning to something higher they call God, turn away from man. The saint's love/hatred of man means he wants nothing to do with the clergy or even the monastery.

they aren't aware of what's been happening in the world, that is, that the Enlightenment has come and gone. — Tate

There were many who in Nietzsche's time and in ours who are well aware of the Enlightenment who stil hold to a belief in God.

If you only refer to the Cambridge book pages, I have difficulty finding the quotes in the Cambridge pdf.
Could we stick to one or the other; or do both? — Amity

The problem is different members use different translations.

Prologue 2, page 5

means the section of the prologue that is numbered 2, which is page 5 of the Cambridge translation.

He's gone into the forest to escape men because he loved them too well. Was he gay? — Tate

Zarathustra answered: “I love mankind."
“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.”

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

The theme of going up and coming down recurs. — Tate

And, as we will see with the tightrope walker, crossing.

Shall we move on? — Tate

More of from what? The disagreement you posit and attribute to me?

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

Like the son/Sun of 'God', Jesus the man, he is part of a Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit ? — Amity

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

I don't see where that question is coming from. The death of God is an historical event. It's not a doctrine Nietzsche is pushing. — Tate

An event the (good) news of which the people had either not heard or did not believe.

Quotations are from the Cambridge edition.

“Could it be possible! This old saint in his woods has not yet heard the news that
God is dead!” – [Prologue 2, page 5]

When Zarathustra had spoken these words he looked again at the people and fell silent. “There they stand,” he said to his heart, “they laugh, they do not understand me, I am not the mouth for these ears.
Must one first smash their ears so that they learn to hear with their eyes? Must one rattle like kettle drums and penitence preachers? Or do they believe only a stutterer? (Prologue 5, page 9)

The stutterer likely refers to Paul. The need to smash their ears suggests that they do not believe God is dead.

I'm sure you don't think Zarathustra comes down the mountain to teach atheism. — Tate

He comes to teach the overman.

The death of God is an historical event. — Tate

What is the role of religion without God?

Plato's “I went down yesterday to the Piraeus..." — Amity

Good point! Going up and down, high and low, the theme reverberates in both Plato and Nietzsche.

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

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

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

The question is whether man is a divided being and not a unity of some sort. Of what sort of unity
will be something taken up by Nietzsche.

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

What are your thoughts? — Tate

I will leave the question open for now. It is a guiding question. One might expect, given the death of God, that religion would be rejected.

like any other world-weary hermit and seeker of peace and enlightenment. — Amity

He is, however, different than the hermit saint he meets. Both profess to love mankind, but the saint loves mankind "too much" and thus turns away from man to God.

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

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

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

Not divided but both high and low.

The point is: Zarathustra, the creator of an ancient religion, has withdrawn from the world, become full, and now wants to shine his light upon mankind. So he goes down the mountain. — Tate

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

then 2+2 is not 4 either. — Real Gone Cat

You are catching on. The sum of 2+2 is (equal to ) 4.

If 2+2 is 4 because they have the same numeric value, then 2+2 is 3+1. — Real Gone Cat

Here we get into the question of number theory. The most important contemporary work on this is Jacob Klein's "Greek Mathematical Thought and the Origins of Algebra". Numbers are often treated as abstract entities, but for the Greeks a number tells us how many. It is always a number of something, of some unit, the unit of the count.

Klein worked with Husserl on this. It is not simply a historical study of an outmoded way of thinking about numbers. The claim is that something is lost when we treat numbers symbolically.

When you shift from thinking about numbers as abstract entities to counting then it becomes clear why 2+2 and 3+1 are not the same. Any child who learns math using manipulatives knows this. If I have 3 units, donuts or dollars and you have 1, that is not the same as each of us having 2. If I have 10 dollars and you have 10 cents, we each have 10 of something but not the same thing. The numerical value is the same but 10 dollars is not 10 cents.

Why is he talking to the sun? — Tate

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 ...
Like you, I must go down as the human beings say, to whom I want to descend.

Some things here to note: the connection between sun and man, Z likening himself to the sun - bringing illumination to those for whom he shines, separating himself from and once again joining man, going up and going down.

But he is also unlike the sun:

... Zarathustra wants to become human again.

Your thoughts so far? — Amity

You asked:

Is it necessary to read the Intro first? — Amity

It is not necessary, but depending on who wrote it, it might be helpful or not. I have not read Pippin's introduction but have read other things by him. I think he is a reliable source, which is not to say that his is the final word. I think you cited him in the Hegel discussion group.

I just took a quick look at his introduction to TSZ:

Nietzsche himself provides no preface or introduction, although the section on TSZ in
his late book, Ecce Homo, and especially its last section, “Why I am a Destiny,” are invaluable guides to what he might have been up to.

I see that in his recommendations for further reading, under contemporary commentaries he begins with:

Laurence Lampert’s Nietzsche’s Teaching: An Interpretation of “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” (Yale
University Press,1986, establishes the need for a new teaching, the nature of the teaching, and the foundational role it plays in the history of philosophy. Lampert’s Nietzsche and Modern Times: A Study of Bacon, Descartes, and Nietzsche (Yale University Press, 1993), much broader in scope, goes
further in the direction of specifying the ecological, earth-affirming properties of Nietzsche’s teaching via Zarathustra.

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

... if you kept all 4 donuts, that would be different from sharing them out 3 for you and 1 for me. — Real Gone Cat

You have completely missed the point. It is not about the math. It is about the word 'is'. The sum of 2+2 is 4, the sum of 3+1 is 4, but 2+2 is not 3+1.

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! — Amity

To clarify, I do not think that using secondary sources is a cheat. They can be helpful. The problem, as I see it, is using only secondary sources. It is as if one were to read the tour guide without touring the places described.

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

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

You are aware that 2+2 = 3+1 ? — Real Gone Cat

Of course!

You want to find mysticism here. — Real Gone Cat

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 recently found it and haven't looked at it closely, but this contemporary translation seems to be pretty good: http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/LoserLit/zarathustra.pdf[/url]

But yes, he is difficult to read, intentionally so. It has something to do with his hatred of idle readers:

Of all that is written I love only that which one writes with his blood.
Write with blood, and you will experience that blood is spirit.
It is not easily possible to understand the blood of another: I hate the
reading idlers.
Whoever knows the reader will do nothing more for the reader. One
more century of readers – and the spirit itself will stink.
That everyone is allowed to learn to read ruins not only writing in the
long run, but thinking too.
Once the spirit was God, then it became human and now it is even
becoming rabble.
Whoever writes in blood and proverbs does not want to be read, but to
be learned by heart.
[Zarathustra, "Reading and Writing"]

.

And something to do with hiding:

Everything that is profound loves the mask [Beyond Good and Evil, 40]

The comment seems irrelevant to this thread. — Art48

The thread is about the use of the term "is". You start with a mathematica example, but "is" as it is used here simply means equal to.

Rather than:

Force IS equal to mass times acceleration. — Art48

you could say: force equals mass times acceleration.

Or are you objecting to this as well because it seems to confer godlike authority?

So you've changed the meaning of "is" within a single sentence. — Real Gone Cat

I haven't changed anything. "2+2 is 4" never meant anything other than 2+2=4. The point of saying that 3+1 is not 2+2 was to indicate that "is" means equal and not the same thing

Trump presented himself as a piece of garbage from the beginning. — Baden

Some see him that way, others see him as worthy of being president. Of those who regard him as worthy some overlook his flaws. It was common for Christian Evangelists, many of whom regarded him as a savior, to say things like "he is human" and "we are all sinners". Nothing he did mattered as long as he overturned Roe and championed "Christian rights".

Gary Hart's 1984 run for US President came to an abrupt end when it was revealed he was having an extra-marital affair. Standards certainly have changed.

I don't know what the image is that Marin cultivated or the extent to which her image has changed in the eyes of the Finnish people or how much they even care about about what she does in her private life.

My comment was intended to be less about her and more about what people expect of their political leaders. In the past it was easier to keep things out of the public eye. I don't think the behavior of political leaders has changed all that much, it is just that it is far more difficult to maintain the illusion of being a paragon of virtue.

Do you have some special mathematical definition of "is"? — Real Gone Cat

Nothing special. The OP said:

“Two plus two is four” — Art48

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.

Maybe. But given what has been going on elsewhere, it may be that standards and expectations are changing. Trump has certainly done his part to lower the bar.

... of the many Nietzsches one could choose to adopt as the ‘true’ Nietzsche, all of which can be linked to solid evidence from his work, one should choose the most radical. — Joshs

Why?

My preference, and it comes down to a matter of preference, is for the interpretation that helps us understand the text, attending to the details and connecting them, illuminating the whole of the text or texts of the author.

An appropriately "radical" one would be one that gets to the roots, not one that pushes it to the edge.

We see this happen all the time in interpretive scholarship. Dreyfus’ reading of Heidegger and Husserl has been dumped in favor of more radical approaches, Hacker’s Wittgenstein has been replaced for many by Cavell’s and Conant’s, etc. — Joshs

This can become a matter of an uncritical preference for the new and novel. Cavell's and Conant's work is no longer new. It seems likely that some will see this as good reason to dump them in favor of something less conventional. An interpretation may benefit from the work of earlier interpreters, but there is the danger of interpreters focusing on earlier interpretations moving further away from the text itself with each iteration.

My point was that even the most scholarly rigorous reading of an author , one which seeks nothing other than to capture without distortion the author’s original intent, will be oriented by implicit cultural presuppositions ... — Joshs

A "scholarly rigorous reading" and "the most daring and interesting reading of Nietzsche , the one that pushes him to his radical edge" are two different things. Being historically situated is not a choice, but what you take to be the most interesting reading is a deliberate choice.

To me that two key questions are: 1)What is the most daring and interesting reading of Nietzsche , the one that pushes him to his radical edge? 2) Whether or not we think this most radical reading is consistent with the author’s text, can we at least understand it’s assertions on its own terms? — Joshs

If the most daring and (to your mind) interesting readings of Nietzsche do not have to be consistent with Nietzsche's text, then are they still readings of Nietzsche and not misreadings? If the assertions are to be understood on their own terms, and these assertions are not consistent with Nietzsche's text, then is what sense, if any, are they still assertions about Nietzsche's text?

In mathematics, the word “is” seems justified. Two plus two IS four and even God himself can’t change that fact; “Two plus two is four” seems to live in its own pristine, immutable world, entirely beyond the reach of any outside power to change. — Art48

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

Added: "is" as used here is short for "is equal to".

Yes, seppuku is the only way in the face of her disgrace.

But a politician is a public representative of a state — javi2541997

Right, a representative of the

interests

of the state. How is she doing in that regard?

The assumption by many seems to be 'politics is sober and serious, please don't have a life too.' — Tom Storm

I wonder who else is covered under this assumption, doctors, lawyers, Sunday school teachers?

Good times as such tend to end binge-party-style where it concerns the very young as young people are less limited by a sense of responsibility — Seeker

But this was not about the very young.

especially if provided 'exemplary behavior' of someone as succesful as the PM. — Seeker

Except this was not provided as exemplary behavior. It was an unauthorized video of people dancing at private party. Do you really think very young people will start drinking and dancing because the PM does?

You seem to be making this about me, — Seeker

I am not making it about you, I am making it about what you have said.

my personal opinion is of no value — Seeker

And yet you continue to make them public.

quote="Seeker;732450"]I am merely stating facts rather than going on a crusade.[/quote]

You are not stating facts, you are imagining what the consequences of seeing Marin singing and dancing will be on very young people. It is good to know that you are not going on a crusade, but, unfortunately, others are

After all this seems to be politics about politics. — Seeker

It seems to be a political attempt to embarrass or discredit her.

Should a minister of state, being an important example (role model) to a lot of (very) (young) people, take care not to present himself/herself (in public, via smartphone/internet) under the influence of an intoxicating substance which is known for its addictive (and destructive) properties? — Seeker

She was not presenting herself in public. It was a private party. The video was made public without her permission.

Why would "(very) (young) people" make of this something more than someone dancing, singing, and having a good time? Many of them have parents, who are their primary examples and role models, who drink and sing and dance.

Or is it that such behavior shouldnt be made into an issue because the substance is legalized and (especially not) because the prime minister seems to be able to absorb certain quantities of the substance without any negative consequence (which could be considered an example in and of itself)? — Seeker

No, it shouldn't be an issue because she was not doing anything wrong. Are you accusing her of not drinking responsibly? Or do you think someone in her position should not drink at all?

From Being to becoming.

Going back at least to Plato traditional morality has sought a fixed, unmoving point by which to guide us. Movement or change was, and by many still is, regarded as a defect. Fixed truths were beneficial or even necessary. But life is not fixed and unchanging.

Are you saying morality springs from the same source? — Tate

Yes.

What is self-overcoming exactly? — Tate

I will let Zarathustra tell us.

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?
All creatures so far created something beyond themselves; and you want to be the ebb of this great flood and would even rather go back to animals than overcome humans?
What is the ape to a human? A laughing stock or a painful embarrassment. And that is precisely what the human shall be to the overman: a laughing stock or a painful embarrassment.
You have made your way from worm to human, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now a human is still more ape than any ape.
But whoever is wisest among you is also just a conflict and a cross between plant and ghost. But do I implore you to become ghosts or plants?
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 earth!

Or does it temper the will to power, which I interpret as the will to dominate one's environment? — Tate

All of life is a will to power. It does not make sense to interpret this as the will to dominate. The will to power can be seen in the majesty of the mighty oak and the persistence of the weed emerging in the hostile environment of sunbaked concrete.

I'll argue that it's opposed to life and the will to power. — Tate

In the Genealogy the development of Christian morality is the development of the will to power through man's self-overcoming. It is only later that it becomes life denying.

How best to live in the absence of knowledge of what is best. That is the question.
The examined life provides the answer? — Amity

No. The examined life is the life of questioning, including questioning our opinions about what is best.

To give serious consideration to different views on e.g. what constitutes philosophy. — Amity

Or, perhaps giving serious consideration to different views is what constitutes philosophy, at least in the tradition of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. That is, the tradition of zetetic skepticism.

What made you bring that into this conversation about opinion? — Amity

The article you cited on Plato, friendship, and eros. Eros is typically regarded as being about bodily desires, but Plato treats it more broadly to include desires of the soul. To the casual reader it may appear that he makes it about desires that are not of or are separate from the body, but the division of one (a person or individual) into two entities (body and soul) is problematic.

Misology is defined as the hatred of reasoning; the revulsion or distrust of logical debate, argumentation, or the Socratic method.

Is that what you mean?
Basically, people expect answers or solutions from philosophy. When it fails to deliver certainty, then they see no use for it. Indeed, it is despised as a waste of time. Navel-gazing? — Amity

Yes, the term appears in the Phaedo. I arises from a love of philosophy that expects too much from it. In this case the failure of philosophy to give answers about death that will alleviate the fear of death. Not only their own death but Socrates death, who was sentenced to death for his life of philosophical inquiry. Not only a waste of time but dangerous.

Plato or Socrates used dialogue to question assumptions on which opinions are based? — Amity

Yes, and @Michael that is why a thread on opinion (onions) does not belong in the Lounge. It is of central philosophical concern.

So, first of all, what do you mean exactly by balance in one’s soul ? — Hello Human

I cannot tell you exactly what it means, but the politics of the soul as discussed in Plato's Republic is a good place to start. The soul is a competition of desires. Different souls are ruled by different desires. The just soul is one in which the various desires are brought into a hierarchical order, from low - bodily desires, to high - the desire for the just, beautiful, and good.