I didn't want to put the point number 5 because I was worried about being so tiresome. — javi2541997

I agree quoting and reading directly from an article can be tiresome. But what's one more little characteristic of myths, especially if it and the comparisons are questionable?
It's only tiresome if no questions are asked...and so far, the text has proved a useful starting point.
Thanks.

I am still not sure what, if any, conclusions were reached by the author.
And then I noticed there was a follow-up...more questions.

Wherein lies the motivation for all of this text?

A brief description of ideas and principles characteristic of the Friesian and other modifications of Kantian philosophy editorially recommended in the Proceedings of the Friesian School, Fourth Series:... — The Principles of Friesian Philosophy

The Proceedings of the Friesian School, Fourth Series is therefore founded on the determination that the lapse of Friesian philosophy in English cannot be allowed to be. Now, Leonard Nelson and Friesian principles will be here on the World Wide Web, however heretical they are, for anyone looking for alternatives to the sterile, nihilistic, or illiberal mainstream of 20th and now 21st Century thought. Let this be the Palladium of Friesian Philosophy. — The Proceedings of the Friesian School

Sadly, we currently live in a social context which depends on scientific materialism. It looks like the truth is based on some mathematical formulas but we forget and give up on imagination. — javi2541997

Wow. That is some general statement or claim to make.
How true is it?
Where is the evidence; how do you know?

If you are interested in this topic you can read it here: The origin of philosophy: The Attributes of Mythic. — javi2541997

Thanks for the article. I noticed your OP lists only 4 out of the 5 characteristics of myth and changes in philosophy as listed. The 5th:

5. Myths are morally ambivalent.
The gods and heroes do not always do what is right or admirable, and mythic stories do not often have edifying moral lessons to teach.

Ex 1:
The Egyptian god Seth (St) murdered and dismembered his brother Osiris (Wsir) and is later attacked for this by Osiris's son Horus. But Seth is then forgiven by Isis (ꜢSt), his sister and the wife of Osiris and mother of Horus, even though Seth had badly damaged Horus's eye in their fight.
[...]
the Egyptians recognized the moral awkwardness of putting the name of Osiris's murderer on his temple, but this did not discredit the cult of Seth or the king named after him. Some gods are just like that. But they are still gods.

Ex 2:
The Greek hero of the Iliad, Achilles, seems to be a far less admirable character than the Trojan hero, Hector, whom Achilles slays at the climax of the epic.

Changed in Philosophy: The Presocratic philosopher Xenophanes criticizes the poets for ascribing shameful acts to the gods:
Heraclitus condemns blood sacrifice and the worship of idols. The moralization of the Greek gods is thoroughly effected by Socrates and Plato, who cannot imagine the gods doing anything wrong or evil. A similar moral critique is carried out in contemporary Persian religion by the prophet Zoroaster (Zaraθuštra)... — Myth, Philosophy, Why the Greeks?, Parmenides, Greek History

[emphasis added]

So, the main characters are not always good, so what? Isn't that the whole point of a story?
The contrasts between good and evil...the slow and the quick...highlight thoughts, behaviour and actions with consequences, even if the moral lesson is not always obvious.

Is it true that Socrates and Plato cannot imagine the gods doing anything wrong or evil?

Which are your thoughts on this topic? Do you know other examples about mythopoeic? — javi2541997

Thanks for introducing this topic and new word for me. I'm going to stick with 'myths'.
There are some interesting, curious and questionable claims by the author.

The article starts:

How was Greek philosophy different from what came before? Or was it different?
Even though "philosophy," φιλοσοφία, philosophía, is a Greek word (rendered into Arabic as , falsafah), from φιλεῖν, phileîn, "to love," and σοφία, sophía, "wisdom," perhaps it was just a continuation of how people had always thought about things anyway. After all, it is not uncommon now for items of Egyptian literature, like the Instruction of Ptaḥḥotep, to be listed and taught as Egyptian "philosophy" (although the Tale of the Eloquent Peasant contains principles superior to much modern jurisprudence).

So if Greek philosophy is to be thought of as different, there must be ways of specifying that difference. Similarly, if Greek philosophy is to be compared with Indian (, darshana-shâstra) and Chinese (; Japanese tetsugaku) philosophy, there must be something that they have in common, and that can be mutually contrasted with pre-philosophical thought. — As above

[emphasis added]

I think the key question is how philosophy is defined.
I tend to think of philosophy as a process and a continuation of curiosity and seeking answers to questions about life, the universe and everything.
Myth contains philosophy and philosophy contains myth.
What or who determines what philosophy is?
So, I disagree that there is such a thing as 'pre-philosophical' thought.
Like Cuthbert:

I'm rather sceptical about historical timelines that suggest continual improvement towards a pinnacle of intellectual achievement that is - happily and co-incidentally - our own enlightened times and beliefs - which we may then enjoy contrasting with the benighted superstitions of the ancients. I wouldn't swap science for mythology. But I'm wary of hindsight and narrator bias. The ancients weren't dumb and we ain't too clever. — Cuthbert

Returning to the article and points 1-4.

1. Myths are stories about persons, where persons may be gods, heroes, or ordinary people.
The article concentrates on a narrow set of myths and there is nothing that I can see about ordinary people. We tell ourselves stories all the time about the 'nature of things'.
With increased knowledge, the stories change with less reliance on Gods, sometimes.
Or other 'gods' or 'idols' replace them...
I'm sure we can all think of an exaggerated or idealized person or thing.
Some have already mentioned Trump...myths continue.

2. Myths allow for multiple explanations...and are often humorous.
As does philosophy. Even the more analytical, eternally argued over.

3. Myths are conservative. Innovation is slow.
How true is that? There are many different interpretations.
Consider the different aspects of myth:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/myth/Myth-in-culture

The author compares Greek philosophy which 'represented a burst of creativity'
How so? From which multiplicity of Greek stories to which Greek theories?

4. Myths are self-justifying. The inspiration of the gods was enough to ensure their validity.
Divine inspiration is the validation for the story?
Perhaps some thought that way, but not all.
Stories are told by ordinary people to relate their experiences and any wisdom gleaned.
The creativity of poets and prophets is inspired by real life and imagination.

Thus, myths are not argumentative. Indeed, they often seem most unserious, humorous, or flippant (e.g. Rê-Khepere above).
It still seems to be a psychological truth that people who think of new things are often persuaded of their truth just because they thought of them. And now, oddly, we are without an explanation for creativity. — As above

I would argue that myths/stories include argumentation, as in demonstrations of opposite views and can indeed be humorous as in the Dialogues of Plato.
Innovators are not necessarily persuaded of their 'truth just because they thought of them'.
What does the author mean by: 'And now, oddly we are without an explanation for creativity'?

An interesting article to consider and question.
Thanks @javi2541997

The only good "nu metal" band, although they don't really count — Noble Dust

Why don't they count?
I loved this- the voice and music, the changes... raw and cool emotions; dreamy and sexy :cool:
So perhaps not harsh enough to be counted as 'nu metal'.

Deftones have always claimed diverse influences from groups of various genres, with their musical style diversifying over their career.[6] Their sound has been described as alternative metal, art rock/art metal, experimental rock, nu metal, post-punk, post-hardcore, alternative rock, dream pop, drone rock, post-metal, shoegaze, post-rock, stoner rock, hard rock, trip hop, glitch, math metal, psychedelia, and funk metal. — Wiki

The waves suck you in then you drown
If like, you should sink down beneath
I'll swim down with you
Is that what you want?
You
Is that what you want?
Wave
Wave
Inside

So, social and political discussions are treated equally; set apart from 'philosophical'.
Easy, no?
— Amity

Sounds reasonable to me. — Baden

Well, it only sounds reasonable if that is what you want and consider fair and wise.
The Guidelines are well written and thoughtful, covering most eventualities.

A policy about political discussions, even if I don't agree with it, needs to be written out explicitly.
Clarity of rules is helpful for both newcomers and for mods to point to when decisions are queried.

It's healthy when the forum Admin and team are willing to listen and follow up, carefully.
Thank you, guys :sparkle:

Not a fan.
There's already a place for Debate discussions.
Perhaps 'Hot Debate' :fire:

Hi and thanks again.

I mean, whenever you start a thread you have to choose different categories to fit your new discussion. You propose a new category for "reading groups" — javi2541997

No, that isn't it.
There is already a category in the dropdown menu for 'Reading Groups'. Not easily seen, it lies tucked away under another subcategory 'Learning Centre'...way, way down...

What I've just discovered is that some discussions I thought would be in that category have been placed in 'General Philosophy'. For example, Plato's Phaedo and the recent 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra'.

My proposal was more modest. Simply to have a stickie attached.

For me it is so interesting, indeed. Probably we can put up there discussions like "Thus spoke Zarathustra" or "Emmanuel Kant readings" etc... instead of trying to put them in specific categories such as "Metaphysics" "Epistemology" "Philosophy of religion" etc... — javi2541997

So, yes. You would think that specific readings would already be placed and found in the reading group category. But it seems that this is a lost place not used, for whatever reason.

Perhaps 'book discussions' should be given a tighter and higher spot in the hit parade :chin:

But hey, I've given this Feedback section enough of my time.
Appreciate your welcome follow-up :sparkle:

I think religious discussion can be as heated as political discussion — universeness

Clearly so. At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseam.
My eventual argument was for the standards of moderation to be applied equally across the board.
Then there would be no need for such exclusionary guidelines.
However, my argument failed to convince. See:

I initially asked for increased vigilance but then changed it to a compromise position.

'we perhaps intervened too late under the current ruleset. Maybe we can try and be quicker on the draw.
— fdrake

Being 'quicker on the draw' is exactly what was being asked for!
So, how to make sense of that in the Guidelines...? — Amity

To be honest, I doubt that anybody else gives a damn.

However, if anything should be included it is 'political discussions', given that its heated 'tone' has given rise to discussion about the appropriate level of moderation.
The 'Shoutbox' and 'Lounge', could easily be edited to 'Social' areas.

So, social and political discussions are treated equally; set apart from 'philosophical'.
Easy, no?

Thanks for you response.

Well, to be honest with you I think book discussion are easier to carry out rather than political ones. Since I've been in the forum I took part in a lot of threads related to books. — javi2541997

Yes, there are quite a few threads, related to books, for sure.
My question concerns discussions of a particular book within a 'Reading group'.

My OP's are even influenced by Mishima works and I never noticed big issues during the debate. — javi2541997

I've had a quick look at your most recent discussion threads and OPs.
You write well and considerately, OPs are excellent.
Your careful attitude and continuing, mature interest seem to bring out the best in others :up:

However, the last 6 have been in a wide variety of categories:
1. Logic and philosophy of mathematics
2. Philosophy of Art
3. Philosophy of Religion
4. Political Philosophy
5. Philosophy of Science
6. Metaphysics and Epistemology

Nowhere have you started a book discussion in the 'Reading group' category.
Arguably, they are more difficult to lead and maintain, especially if the author is controversial.
Or whose writing is convoluted with a variety of interpretations.

Would it make book discussions easier, if there was a stickie with a clear and specific guideline?
— Amity

What do you mean? Do you want a discussion related to linguistics rather than philosophy? — javi2541997

To clarify, this has nothing to do with linguistics. Unless I suppose the book is about linguistics.
It is simply to consider having a stickie as a reminder of category description and good practice.
Also, basic 'How to...' advice on leading or make a reading group enjoyable as well as a learning experience. What is required?
That kind of thing...

I thought it was worth considering but perhaps not.

Nietzsche said that one has to be careful who one decides is an enemy because one elevates them by fighting them. So, by fighting Christianity he became stuck with it. — Paine

Hmm. Yes. I see your point.
Some don't see beyond the slogan: 'God is Dead'. A stuck refrain.
But he lifted up Christianity for inspection, highlighting and revealing its defects.
In a lyrical, creative way...as in TSZ...echoing his love for music and composition.
Thanks for sharing :sparkle:

Just got around to listening to this. It's so good :cool:

He asks a man for what he could spare, with shame in his eyes
"Get a job you fu**in' slob," is all he replies
God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in his shoes
'Cause then you really might know what it's like to sing the blues
[...]
I've seen the good side of bad and the downside of up
And everything between
I licked the silver spoon drank from the golden cup
And smoked the finest green
I stroked the fattest dimes at least a couple of times
Before I broke their heart
You know where it ends, yo, it usually depends on where you start

So I got wondering if the 'Protest Song' was alive and kicking in 2022...
Not exactly mainstream. Why?

[deleted]

An anti-war protest song by the one-hit wonder German band Nena from their 1983 album.
An English-language version titled "99 Red Balloons", with lyrics by Kevin McAlea, was also released after the wild success of the German song internationally. The English version is not a direct translation of the German original and contains somewhat different lyrics.

:up:
But...I don't really understand the message :chin:
Do you think N would like this, or even sing along?!

'The Nietzsche Song'.

A selective biography of the great Friedrich Nietzsche, to the tune of Nena's '99 Red Balloons'.
Perhaps a little off in points, hopefully more interesting than a dreary textbook :D
You may guess, part way through, that i can't speak German, and thus, my pronunciation may be more then a little off..

words:

in a little town they called Rocken
Friedrich Nietzsche's name
was first written
born to a Lutheran Pastor
who shortly died, Nietzsche sobered faster
But as a child, a prodigy
was the word used to describe Nietzsche
he excelled at school and promised fame
but the antichrist became his name

a scholar of philology
which led him to write the birth of tragedy
an exploration of the grecian arts
which wasn't well received in many parts.

but he soon found his real calling
as he turned to philosophical mauling
starting off with schopenhauer
As the antichrist became his name

a proponent of relativity,
and the lack of objective morality
Nietzsche's works were quite controversial
unlike Hume, that giant turtle.

in an intensely atheistic turn
Zarathustra became the source of his learning
it's here that he grabbed his claim to fame
and the antichrist became his name

(the bit where it all goes wrong..)
Wohin ist Gott?
rief er, ich will
es euch sagen!
Wir haben ihn getötet,

Gott ist tot!
Gott bleibt tot!
Und wir haben ihn getötet!
Wie trösten wir uns,
die Mörder aller Mörder?

now after that interlude
Nietzsche went mad,
and his work was 'improved'
by his awful nazi sister
who shoved it all in front of Hitler

the philosopher of the third Reich
was an ironic position for someone like him
who despised nationalism
and hated antisemitism..

and so it seems, that was his life,
a relatively short one of plenty strife
but now thanks to Walter Kauffman
he's regaining his reputation

a life of scholarly pursuits
is finally bursting into fruit
i'm glad of Nietzsche's final fame
though the Antichrist, he does remain..

thanks for listening :]

If you've got the time, check out my music site:
www.myspace.com/tomadoorey
thanks :]

Time for me to be quiet and watch the exegesis of others. — unenlightened

I don't think there's going to be a lot of that forthcoming!
But we'll see...
Good talking to you!

Stop thinking that anyone enlightened, unenlightened, Zarathustra, Nietzsche, Jesus, Hitler, L Ron Hubbard, or David Attenborough is the overman with the answers. — unenlightened

Are you talking to me?
An all-knowing 'overman' has never been, and never will be, that to which I adhere.
I don't think that any single philosopher has all the answers. How could they?

Here, we see a dabbing, dabbling or dappling of light and shade as we read and reflect...
A few pay more attention, going beyond.
To bring depth without darkness.
Dancers, creative and informative.
Aware and attuned.
It's why I hang around, even when I want to leave.
And might still yet...

No one wants to be killed by clowns, but that is what is happening right now, before our very eyes. — unenlightened

OK. I can't help but think of current state of UK politics...an overturn of previous values...getting murkier and deadlier by the day. I could go on, but I won't.

As always un, you make me return to questions I should have asked.
I skipped over the bit, now bolded:

To read TSZ seriously is to subject oneself to a psychological treatment, rather than to analyse and consider some philosophical system. The clown destroys the dancer - and Nietzsche made dancing central to life. — unenlightened

I enjoyed the imagery but didn't know what you meant. It always amazes me how the/my brain seems to go blind and not give equal attention to all of the words. Why is that? Necessity or Pickiness?
Questions now arise: How did N make dancing central to life? What kind or form of dancing? To what tune? And why would any 'clown' want to destroy the 'dancer'? Who does the clown represent?
Where can this be found in the text?

I could say that the book is visionary, and the secret to the interpretation of dreams is this: Everything in the dream is you. — unenlightened

Yes, I think this is right. It has the feel of a dream as both source and continuation.
To interpret this, to discover or uncover N's Big Idea, is to enter Z's world.
Almost a baptism by immersion.

Take the aphorism for example; not an argument, or a definition, or anything familiar to a scholar, but closer to a mantra or a koan; something to fill one's head with to block habitual thoughts. — unenlightened

So, reading as meditation. Giving whole attention to the text.

I wondered whereabouts in Z, there was mention of a clown, I hit search and found one.
This from the 4th and Final Part: 'On the Higher Man'.

Lift up your hearts, my brothers, high! higher! And don’t forget your legs either! Lift up your legs as well, you good dancers, and better still: stand on your heads too!
Even in happiness there are heavy creatures, there are born ponderipedes. Quaintly they struggle, like an elephant struggling to stand on its head.
But it is better to be foolish with happiness than foolish with unhappiness, better to dance ponderously than to walk lamely. So learn this wisdom from me: even the worst thing has two good reverse sides –
– even the worst thing has good legs for dancing: so learn from me, you higher men, to stand yourselves on your right legs!
So unlearn moping and all rabble sadness! Oh how sad even today’s rabble clowns seem to me! But this today is of the rabble. — Cambridge pdf 285-6

'ponderipedes' - :lol:
Are serious readers of TSZ then 'wonderipedes'? :chin: :nerd:

We always tend to understand the text in terms of our culture, rather than our culture in terms of the text - we are always looking to explain to each other - to understand rather than over-stand. — unenlightened

Again, you turn my thoughts around. It is inevitable that as individuals our thoughts or values are part of our culture. Our minds are colored or stained by that.
However, if we try to understand something or someone else, there is a need to get over ourselves.
Go beyond what we think we know for sure...to examine values or what is worthwhile.
Reading a text can help us question the very culture which has helped us to grow as weeds or flowers.

We can get bogged down with our need to be understood or to understand. To justify by reason.

Understand - interesting elements of the compound word, figuratively and literally, starting here:

Old English understandan "to comprehend, grasp the idea of, receive from a word or words or from a sign the idea it is intended to convey; to view in a certain way," probably literally "stand in the midst of," from under + standan "to stand" (see stand (v.)).

If this is the meaning, the under is not the usual word meaning "beneath," but from Old English under, from PIE *nter- "between, among" (source also of Sanskrit antar "among, between," Latin inter "between, among," Greek entera "intestines;" see inter-). Related: Understood; understanding. — Etymonline

I thought you had invented a neologism! Imagine my surprise at:

Overstand -

"to stand over or beside," from Old English oferstandan; see over- + stand (v.). In modern Jamaican patois it is used for understand as a better description of the relationship of the person to the information or idea. — Etymonline

So, what we are looking for is to relate better both to TSZ and Nietzsche...yes?
Between or among ourselves.

Many of the responses are not invested in finding something for themselves in the text. — Paine

'So it goes' - Kurt Vonnegut.

The most popular way the Overman is interpreted by contemporary Nietzsche fans is post human , particularly the post human god. — Tate

Tate, I didn't even click on the link. Who cares about the most popular interpretation?
Have you done your own yet?
I think not. You left this discussion you started as 'leader', remember? It had barely begun.

The post-human element might be important to consider at some point.
Where is it mentioned in Z?

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

He raises several important issues which are worth discussing. — Fooloso4

And in a certain order:

...However, we must appreciate Nietzche on his own terms: that his philosophy was clad in parable was consistent with his own proclaimed values.

In Thus Spake Zarathustra, Nietzche fashioned his own, personal new mythology and cosmology (here, myth is meant not as a lie but as a narrative that produces meaning in life), using the creative tools that he proposes people should use in their philosophical projects. In this way, he was just being authentic.

His masterpiece is as much a work of philosophy as it is a piece of art that carries within it a cosmos, a worldview with its own aesthetic sensibilities.

[...]

The Overman

Here is perhaps one of the most misinterpreted ideas in the Nietzchean wisdom tradition. The Overman (sometimes translated as Superman, in German Ubermansch) is an artist-philosopher, a self-creator who makes his own life and meaning. In a naturalist, evolving cosmos empty of Gods and of inherent meaning, mortals need an ideal to pull them forward and to build meaning with. Hence, Zoroaster teaches that man is a rope between the ape and the Overman, who then embodies our destiny and whatever narratives we build around the Overman are our self-chosen guiding visions for becoming and for the future.

So, we are allowed to create our own interpretation of what Nietzsche means?
It's time to return to the text.
I've been away too long...

To read TSZ seriously is to subject oneself to a psychological treatment, rather than to analyse and consider some philosophical system. — unenlightened

Both seem pretty ominous.
But both concern words and their curious ways...

What do you mean by a 'psychological treatment'?
Something like CBT ?
Or Reading Therapy, Bibliotherapy - to change the way we think and behave?
Analysis still involved.

As to a 'philosophical system'. Hmm... :chin:
I suppose some would call Z a philosophical masterpiece...a hidden and creative system, perhaps?

So, N has gone beyond the original prophet?
— Amity

In the Divine Songs of Zarathustra, the language of the prophet being a gift is deeply established. An example from a verse: — Paine

I read some of the book linked (searching for your verse). A truly fascinating insight into translation.
A few Intro Notes (p8 of pdf):
1. The Gathas must be judged by themselves and in the light of their own contents.
5. It is the thought of the Gathas which is truly profound.
[...]
As I advance in years and in knowledge of life, I find deeper and deeper meaning in each verse.
"Veil after veil will lift - but there must be veil upon veil behind."

Re:
1. I have tried to do that with Z but have failed; such is the complexity of the work. So much so, that here I am reading Divine Songs by Zarathustra, the original.
5. So, it is the thought or Big Idea of N which is truly profound; not easily uncovered in the text itself.
Layered veils indeed.

That question cuts across a number of themes that don't resolve into a single interpretation. — Paine

Ever felt like a fly caught in a spider's web?

From the link, I found a verse starting " Him shall I strive to turn to us with songs...
[...] Songs of Devotion shall we offer Him"(pdf p301).

Similar to Z's saint and his gift of songs praising God and god.

“And what does the saint do in the woods?” asked Zarathustra.
The saint answered: “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. But tell me, what do you bring us as a gift?”

And how does Z respond?

When Zarathustra had heard these words he took his leave of the saint
and spoke: “What would I have to give you! But let me leave quickly before
I take something from you!” – And so they parted, the oldster and the
man, laughing like two boys laugh.

No songs for the saint.
But what will Nietzsche sing to us...? What will Zarathustra sing to the lower crowds...?
And will we/they dance to the tune we/they hear or think we/they hear?
Will we/they part laughing... like two boys?
Tell me how do 2 boys laugh, and at what, who?

If he did (pre disagreement with Wagner about Christianity) it would be in this mode: — Tom Storm

Bryn Terfel :heart:
Back to Nietzsche. He admired Goethe's Faust, which bears comparison to Mozart's 'Don Giovanni'.
And so the return to Bryn. I think Nietzsche is a frustrated Donny G :monkey:


And here Bryn plays Don Giovanni, hiding behind the pillars from one of his many conquests.
The truth being revealed to her:

Before I go out for the day. Something serious to consider.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/734675

Did Nietzsche ever sing?

Your excellent and substantive response here I will need to take time to read.
Wonderful writing with appropriate and helpful linking,
I am learning so much more than I ever anticipated. :sparkle:

I am willing to keep reading and respond to interesting observations.
Let's see how many other people want something from the discussion.
I think unenlightened has brought a good dish to the potluck. — Paine

Absolutely.
The questions of @unenlightened stopped me in my tracks, return and think again. The discussion progressed from there. I edited earlier posts to include him and apologised for my lapse. I didn't mean to exclude others from the conversation.

I hope others are reading along and join in whenever they wish!
I started off not caring all that much about N...this discussion has changed that.
It's a thread for everyone. No leader required, apparently! :smile:

@Paine @Fooloso4 @unenlightened and any others interested!

I had a quick scroll down this:

https://societyofepicurus.com/reasonings-on-thus-spake-zarathustra/

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

Perhaps just pick out important parts?
— Amity

A sensible approach. — Fooloso4

Which parts would you, @Paine or @unenlightened or anyone consider the most important?

@Paine@Fooloso4 @unenlightened and anyone else following.

So, is it time to say "Enough is Enough!"?
Or perhaps just get through the Prologue???

I can understand people not wanting to continue.
This takes a huge chunk out of anybody's time when they have other priorities.

I think undertaking a close reading of the whole book is not feasible in a TPF discussion.
Perhaps just pick out important parts?

TBH, I am not strongly motivated and using the laptop has caused bits and pieces of me to complain.
I'm fine with leaving it here, as far as TPF is concerned.

I'm reading an essay about the eternal return, so I'll be doing my own thing. Thanks for your generous participation. — Tate

:up: No worries. Stay well. :sparkle:

So, who's up for taking the lead? Not me. Don't have the knowledge or experience.

It can be a job share @Paine @Fooloso4 ?
[Edit: sorry @unenlightened - for forgetting you! :yikes:
Who else might I have offended? @Srap Tasmaner ? Everyone!?]

Yes and no. It is the metamorphoses of the spirit (Holy Ghost, Hegel). I will hold off saying more until we get there. — Fooloso4

OK. The suspense is almost killing me...let me know if when I pass it by?

No. — Fooloso4

:lol:
K.I.S.S. :kiss:

A closer look at Zoroastrianism is likely to reveal other connections. — Fooloso4

Have you done that?

The saint says:

This wanderer is no stranger to me: many years ago he passed by here. Zarathustra he was called; but he is transformed.

The ancient prophet of good and evil, who overturned the religion of his time, has a new teaching, beyond good and evil. — Fooloso4

Well, I didn't even see that when I passed it by!
I simply thought he was talking about the Nietzsche character...
So, N has gone beyond the original prophet?

In Z's first speech, "On the Three Metamorphoses", the spirit first becomes a camel. — Fooloso4

OK. Now I must continue; to pass through the eye of a needle...