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...

...my next question is , how can we reevaluate our values? — unenlightened

Even by reading something that is out of our usual habit ( like Z).
Being of an open and questioning mind.
To get over ourselves.

From the speech: On the Way of the Creator

You must want to burn yourself up in your own flame: how could you become new if you did not first become ashes — Cambridge pdf p93

Engaging in philosophical discussions?
How many people actually want to burn themselves?
Perhaps it needs others to light the spark...but then not to pour petrol over the flames?
A clean, steady burn.

Your thoughts?

But I think I should not expect an answer yet. My questions may seem premature, but they are only premature if you think they need to be answered immediately, before we confront the text; I propose them rather as ways to approach the text. — unenlightened

Are you joining in a 'confrontation' of the text?
Other than suggesting questions to keep in mind, how do you tackle the prose?
Sentence by sentence? Word by word?
Recognising key elements you are keen to explore...?

Or do we need to examine what values we prioritise...good use of time, energy...to reach a sufficient depth of understanding? Whatever that might be...
A close reading is fine and even desirable... but how much time have we to devote in a forum discussion?

I really do not know. It seems like a fundamental kind of question though. Zarathustra is a somewhat mythical ancient founder of a religion, into whose mouth Nietzsche is putting these words. — unenlightened

Thank you for pointing out what should have been an initial question for me.
The title of the book.
Why 'Thus Spake Zarathustra'?

I don't know that N is putting words into the prophet and founder of Zoroastrianism.
Why did he choose it? What inspired him to write it in this way?
I found this but have no idea as to its veracity. There are probably better places to go:

https://weddingincana.com/zarathustra-of-nietzsche-the-imaginary-savior

The idea of Zarathustra of Nietzsche goes back to Nietzsche in the first years of his stay in Basel. We find clues in the notes dating from 1871 and 1872. But, for the fundamental conception of the work, Nietzsche himself indicates the time of a holiday in the Engadine in August 1881, where he came, during a walk through the forest, on the edge of Lake Silvaplana, like “the first flash of Zarathustra’s thought,” the idea of the eternal return. […].

Thus spoke Zarathustra [... ] is a philosophical poem by Friedrich Nietzsche, published between 1883 and 1885.

The whole of the book presents a progression from speech to speech which seems instead to indicate that these speeches represent each time a stage in the doctrine of Zarathustra, which would mark the translation by the past simple, Thus spake Zarathustra.

Zarathustra is the Avestan name of Zoroaster, prophet, and founder of Zoroastrianism, the ancient Persian religion. In German, it keeps this old form. Nietzsche chose it because he was the first to teach the moral doctrine of the two principles of good and evil......

Nietzsche himself presented this book as a “5th Gospel“, he wants to make it the equivalent of the poems of Goethe, Dante Alighieri, and the texts of Luther. Thus Spoke Zarathustra is thus both a long poem and a work of reflection on a new promise for the future of man.

But it is also a parody. Zarathustra, retiring for ten years in the mountains and one day feeling the need to share his wisdom, recalls the stay of Christ in the desert, and certain passages of the fourth book are reminiscent of the Last Supper. Religious or esoteric symbols are also very numerous. Finally, one cannot help thinking of Francis of Assisi, a model of friendship between men and animals. — Zarathustra of Nietzsche, the Imaginary Savior by Thomson Dablemond | Feb 21, 2022

Your questions have made me look and think again :sparkle:
I am now more interested in following 'The Speeches' after I get through this interminable slog...

No words.

Thank you :sparkle:
Beautiful and exactly what I was looking for this morning. I'm in that kind of mood.
A little bit sad and surreal. Seeking calm. Found it here. Japanese Zen.

Certainly no need to look up the lyrics!
But my curiosity was piqued as to the meaning.
What, where are the Five Mountains?

Poems of the Five Mountains - An Introduction to the Literature of the Zen Monasteries by Marian Ury

This second, revised edition of a pioneering volume, long out of print, presents translations of Japanese Zen poems on sorrow, old age, homesickness, the seasons, the ravages of time, solitude, the scenic beauty of the landscape of Japan, and monastic life.

Composed by Japanese Zen monks who lived from the last quarter of the thirteenth century to the middle of the fifteenth century, these poems represent a portion of the best of the writing called in Japanese gozan bungaku, “literature of the five mountains.”

“Five mountains” or “five monasteries” refers to the system by which the Zen monasteries were hierarchically ordered and governed. For the monks in the monasteries, poetry functioned as a means not only of expressing religious convictions and personal feelings but also of communicating with others in a civilized and courteous fashion.

https://www.press.umich.edu/18821/poems_of_the_five_mountains

Yes. To all of the above.

Thanks for that :up:

I have come to the conclusion that not even the thread starter is really up for reading the whole of the book. Indeed, how realistic is that? The Prologue alone is proving a challenge...

And you think that is Nietzsche's message to the world? — unenlightened

Another good question.
This is supposed to be philo fiction, right?
Kinda gets confusing. But I'm veering to...Maybe, aye. Maybe no.
I've spilled my beans. Over to you. What do you think?

I haven't read enough of Z or N, as you should have gathered by now.
I don't know.
All I know is I'd like to get on with reading and discussing the text. Anyone else still up for that?

What do you think he found up there? — unenlightened

Good question. Nothing. Of any substance. But. Let me see...
OK, I'm thinking, thinking...
Stand well back, here comes a mind dump ( must be catching).

After 10yrs of solitude, the guy was fed-up:
1. Of the time spent alone
2. Of talking to himself, the Sun and his pets.
3. Of his diet and general circumstances.
4. No newspapers.

He had had his fill of solar enlightenment. His cup runneth over.

4. He had weird dreams as a result of sensory deprivation and consuming hallucinogenic herbs.
5. He received the message that 'God is Dead' (? auditory hallucination)
6. He was hit by a bolt of lightning/sunshine/brilliance ( vision)
7. His brain sparked with the glorious realisation that he was the new God.
''God is dead, long live the g/God''. ( delusional)
8. He wanted to Gift the Message, Big Idea and Superior All Greatness with others below him.
9. He wanted to save them, the sinners so as to have Equal Companions Along The Way.
10. Imparting His Word, Wisdom and Light >>>mini-Zs and gods (creators).
11. The First Rule of Fight Club is You Talk About Fight Club.*
11. More people in the club >>>It's a Wonderful World For All.
12. He wanted to go down on them...

* but if the rabble ears could, would not listen or understand The Tongues...then all Hell...
Something like that.
Oh, plus a New Set of Values... suitably vague.
So, only those Special Members would be stroked.

Time to return to the Text!

Zarathustra descended from the mountain with nothing, — unenlightened

Nothing?

:lol: So true :up:

What page are you folk up to? — Banno

Why do you ask? Do you want to join in?
On my backburner is the comment from Paine:

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: — Paine

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/733690

Kaufman translation, Ch 3 and 5.

Any honest regard of He of the Great Moustache must accept that his ideas, rightly or wrongly, are used by nazis and icels and other nasty folk.

It just will not do to ignore the nasty interpretation, or to pretend that it is not to be found in the corpus. — Banno

Indeed. Where in a forum book discussion should this kind of thing be raised?
My preference would be in the OP.
Then, bearing that in mind, the participants could proceed with a close and careful reading.
Or not...

The irony is, those who praise Nietzsche are pushing against his spirit. — Banno

What do you mean by that?

In the old days we used a thing called the Contents. It remains in vestal form in your PDF. — Banno

Oh, indeed...no flies on you!
I thought I had already linked to The Contents, pp7-9 of pdf.

I didn't realise that your

the flies in the marketplace. — Banno

came from 'The Speeches of Zarathustra', the Section right after the Prologue.

Interesting titles, no? Is there anything significant about their placement? A fly sandwich?

On the New Idol
On the Flies of the Market Place
On Chastity

Is that the point you reached in your reading?

Timely and helpful:

But it does mean people feel the need to address it, with, I assume, something beyond "No, that's a misreading."
[...]
In some cases a misreading can be explained by knowing deception. In some cases, it's a failure of the intellectual conscience. But in some of those cases and in others, a widespread misreading indicates something there in the text that people are hanging their interpretation on. So it might be understandable, even when it's wrong, or at least not as perspicuous as other readings. — Srap Tasmaner

The 'something there in the text' as the source of different interpretations and critical appraisal is key.

That is one reason for a close and careful reading, as with any philosophical text.
A book discussion is not just for those who love the author for whatever reason.

I tend to think this sort of thing is interesting, just as other commonly misunderstood phenomena are. To "save them appearances", you want not just to point out that the moon is in fact much smaller than a star, but also explain why it appears to be so much larger. — Srap Tasmaner

What interests me is how a carefully constructed OP might briefly acknowledge the controversial aspects. This might just help any would-be readers or re-readers to understand the general before delving into the particulars of the book in question.

Is there a best way or an attitude to adopt when reading a book by Nietzsche?
One such question and a few responses, here:
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/8026/how-does-one-read-nietzsche-properly

As a beginner but still knowing the complexity of the work, my approach was to make it as simple and clear as possible. For the first time, no hunting around for secondary sources even if they help.
I wanted to keep my mind clutter-free and free from prejudice. However, that is difficult...

Some advice from the link:

1. Read every word, with particular attention to unfamiliar vocabulary. Nietzsche, as a philologist, was particular about his lexical and syntactic choice, I'm sure. Performing a close read of the text will benefit you enormously, particularly when you understand the then contemporary, historical meaning of his words and phrases, for which you will need the aid of footnotes and research. Taking his words merely for granted in the modern definitions and ideations proves inaccurate. Of course, what you are reading is a translation, which I am not qualified to evaluate, but a keen attention to every word, sentence, and paragraph will fully bring you into the experience, and set you up for the next "step".

2. Note the stylistic, punctuational choices. You will notice that many texts use italicized, parenthesized, or hyphenated text, which to me at any rate, presents a thrilling experience for reading. And this makes sense, given Nietzsche's own opinions on how to write effectively, and I believe such mechanics were present in his original drafts. Feel the words, the phrasing, the tempo, the gravitas, of what you are reading, as it will convey far more emotion and impression than a mere clinical clean read. It should 'disturb' you and make you think, which prepares you for the next "step".

3.Read the text again, but at a different time. If you have this luxury, try reading the text after some time off, or perhaps in a different mood (one that is still conducive to reading, though). You may be surprised, offended, or confused by what he writes, which dangerously lends to the temptation of dismissing his ideas and style. Understand that he may be speaking ironically, craftily, or earnestly, but all with intent and purpose. He is not an easily philosopher to understand!

4. Ruminate! This is the most important step, and is not necessarily the last. Think, think, think, about what you have read, and consider the implications of his writing. Nietzsche was extraordinarily productive and crams so much in so little space. Think, at any point in time in your reading or even just in the everyday, about what could have led him to write what you read, and that exactly, and not something else. Think about particular paragraphs, sentences, even words, but without forgetting an understanding of the overarching themes of his message.

As for his aphorisms, given their pithy and brief nature, you need to think long and hard about them, and not cave to the temptation of appropriating them out of context. Furthermore, it is beneficial to seek the expertise of Nietzsche researchers, who can better provide the context and clarity of how and why he wrote with an affinity for aphorisms. I could write on and on, but I hope this is a good modus operandi for approaching his fantastic works. Best of luck!

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

The beauty of reading from a pdf is its searchability.

On the Flies of the Market Place

Flee, my friend, into your solitude! I see you dazed by the noise of the
great men and stung by the stings of the little — Cambridge pdf p82

I'm on the verge of leaving this pop stand anyways. — Tate

Are you talking about this thread or TPF?
Why to either?

How does eugenics follow from erasing the distinction between soul (psyche) and body? — Fooloso4

If we erase the distinction between soul (psyche) and body, the quest for the Ubermensch implies eugenics. — Tate

Yes, this also puzzled me. Perhaps there is a missing link, or two, in the logic?

I think it is important to note that Nietzsche's ideas are potentially explosive. — Tate

I think we all know that any 'Big Thinker' in philosophy, theology or science can have 'Dangerous Ideas'.
Especially those which challenge the status quo.
There is always the potential for radical explosion with interpretations twisted to suit any agenda.

What exactly these new values are is a little foggy. It has something to do with love of life, but as a goal for humanity, there's a distinct dark side to it. — Tate

'Something to do with...'
Is not good enough.
We need to look at what the text says as we move along.
Isn't that the whole point of this thread?
To look closely at what is and is not said without jumping to conclusions...
And how it is said. What do we enjoy about the writing?

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. — Tate

All of a sudden I heard the proclamation:
"The king is dead, long live the king!"
But this new 'king' is not a continuation of the previous.
Z is not an heir to the Christian kingdom and throne.

Is there a sense of one delusion being replaced by another...?
I have a dream.

What on earth must he have looked or sounded like?
— Amity
The scene is dream-like to me. — Tate

A religious drama.
I see Charlton Heston with his wild, white woolly hair and beard as Moses in the Ten Commandments!


Or Jesus preaching in the marketplace...reaching out and rescuing the world and its people.

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 wager none of this would be a problem if we were all kicking it the pub, face-to-face. — NOS4A2

I agree. That's exactly what I was meaning.

In the end the final decision is left to the owners and those delegated to the task of moderation. If we don’t like it we leave, find another space, or make our own. — NOS4A2

Exactly.
Cheers :party:

Thank you.
I wrote a long reply and then lost it.
It ended with a deep appreciation of all that the mods have to endure.
This discussion has been an eye-opener.

It's too easy for me to sit here and offer criticism, even if with the best intentions, I will now stop.
Sending you all a heap of cheers and goodwill :100: :heart: :flower:

Really?
— Amity

Yes, why not? — Baden

A one-word response indicating agreement with a heady cocktail of sour lemon and cherry twist?
See my disagreement above.
Last evening post.
Cheers :party:

I'm going back to thinking about philosophy now. — Srap Tasmaner

Really?! No, it can't be so :lol:

Playing school-marm is a crappy job though. — Srap Tasmaner

Yeah, and that's another piece of name-calling, innit? The not-cool look :wink:
Along with the pejorative 'Nanny State'.
OK, I'm done here. Said more than enough. Thank you for sharing; much appreciated.

Agreed. — Baden

Really?

The analogy isn’t strong, here. This isn’t a meetup. There is no social setting. We’re just reading and writing in largely solitary situations, where no harm, distraction, or disruption from other members can really befall us. — NOS4A2

So, you don't see TPF as a meeting place where philosophical subjects are debated and discussed?
You don't see the social element in The Shoutbox and Lounge, so designated to make us feel like a 'family'?
Of course, the analogy isn't perfect.
It's like comparing a physical Uni campus, fun, drinking and learning with that of the online Open University.
Online learning with forums include rules designed specifically to protect against abuse and disruptions. There are untrained and trained mods who overlook potential distractions and bullying.

This explains why people think they can “get away with it” on Internet forums. There are no social repercussions for being hostile to other members. No threat of violence, ostracism, or shame. But we’re also largely anonymous, so much so that any insulting and hostile poster is really swinging at a caricature in his own head. Thus, each insult or hypocrisy reveals much more about the offender than his intended victim. He’s fighting something of his own creation. That’s the irony of the whole thing. — NOS4A2

See above, No. It doesn't.
There are repercussions.
And no, the person at the receiving end of a verbal, hostile swing is not a caricature.
They are as real as the intended effects.
The behaviour does reveal the character of the offender. A continual barrage of insults not dealt with by mods is just wrong. Plain and simple.

More importantly, insult, satire, diatribe, are all important facets of democracy in particular, politics in general, and I agree with the mods that some leeway should be given in such discussions. To maintain a modicum of decorum without eliminating these important facets is no easy task, but to make it easier on all involved, maybe we ought to grow thicker skins. — NOS4A2

Again, I disagree re important facets of democracy.
For sure, satire and insults in newspapers are used to great effect to call attention to 'politicians'.
For sure, it's fun but how effective are they? Do you think Boris cries? He laughs in our face.
Big, bullying bastard. See, I have no objection for insults well placed and targeted.

Democracy is not fit for purpose if only the powerful and rich get to call the shots.
Important decisions are taken by those who are not moderate nor moderated.
Ethics advisors sacked and not replaced.
Politics is not fit for purpose if it serves only the privileged; governments run by narcissistic bullies.
A billionaire closing a London street so that he can get the landscapers in...

Growing a thicker skin is not an option. We're already pretty much de-sensitised in any case.
We need to be more aware of what is going on, and why.

Finally, admin and the team will make the decision.
This attempt at a democratic listening exercise is fascinating...

Hi Srap. Sorry I won't be able to address every excellent point you made.
Suffice to say, I am in general agreement.

It's just far too much work to have the mods actually sorting the wheat from the chaff word by word, sentence by sentence, or even paragraph by paragraph. And I was never comfortable deciding whether a point was relevant or substantive -- I wanted to leave that to the community. I never deleted anything as irrelevant. Even the guideline to "stay on topic" struck me as ridiculous on this site, where every thread meanders into being about something else than the OP eventually, and I never enforced that. — Srap Tasmaner

Again, I agree that increased vigilance involves extra presence.
But is it really necessary to be hyper-vigilant to the degree described?
And yes, threads do tend to meander. Some thread starters keep a tight rein. Others are more flexible.
I think it depends on the subject being examined or explored.

Come to think of it, it's not only mods who can moderate; there is self-moderation and when that is not enough, then attention can be brought to the mod team.
The load is shared...

I don't know how effective my little campaign for civility was. A bit. I worried a lot about the chilling effects of aggression and manipulation, that it would discourage participation, and I thought our mandate as mods was to encourage participation -- especially from new arrivals. That put me more toward the puritan end of the scale compared to the other mods and admins, who by and large were more tolerant of a little rough and tumble, even a little name-calling, and even insults so long as they were clever — Srap Tasmaner

Thank you for giving this extraordinary insight into your time as moderator.
Like you, my concern has been with the perception of TPF by newcomers, but hey... sink or swim :roll:

And even longstanding groups of friends can have what amounts to institutionalized bullying as well as friendly sparring among perceived equals. I have no tolerance at all for bullying and I think some of what goes on here is not best described as "passionate" but as attempts at bullying. I think you should be able to read an entire day's posts on TPF and not once see "Reading comprehension not your strong suit, eh?" — Srap Tasmaner

That exactly hits the nail on the head.
Although, I don't expect anyone will agree. In some threads, it's more evident than others.
I've already described that above.
More recently, I noticed a :up: to a mod who would love it if certain 'disagreeable' members would be gone. Wow. How mature is that? You do know there are processes if you're not happy with behaviour, right? For us, it's the Feedback Section, right here.

TLDR: no, there shouldn't be a different standard for political discussions, never should have been; yes, we should raise the standards of the site in general, but not so much through increased enforcement (meaning specifically deleting and editing posts) but by encouraging members to change their own posting habits and changing the community-wide expectations of how you express yourself here. — Srap Tasmaner

So, it seems that we agree that the middle ground, neither low nor high, is the way forward.
I'm writing this in the practically certain knowledge that the status quo will remain.
I'm wasting my time and others are :roll:

I've bolded the part I think sounds good but question how that would be done. There's already a set of guidelines to follow. Sometimes, it's just down to style and individual voice and that's fine.
I do sometimes wonder whether there might be an overuse of emoticons. Guilty as charged.
Too quick and easy; easy too to misinterpret :smirk:

But I think mine is the minority view. I think a lot of people would perceive such a site as less interesting and less fun, and some people wish the site were even more "gloves off". But if the the thrill of landing a zinger is what you're after, Twitter is right down the hall. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, even the mention of the word 'civility' is seen as dull and boring. A bit like in politics.
Not even gonna mention our lot...
It is possible to use sarcasm in a non-hostile way. Can even be clever and fun...but some go too far.
They excite themselves.

Oh boy, I've said too much and should probably edit this post.
If yours is the minority view, then that is a pity. Cos I have sympathy for it.
Use of careful language, think before you speak, but still with a sense of humour...sounds OK to me.

Thanks for your carefully considered 'For' and 'Against' views re: tighter standards on inflammatory posts in political discussions.

I'll just pick out a few:
For:

( 3 ) Aggressive atmospheres arguably impact marginalised and socially nervous voices the most. — fdrake

This has a hint of "Don't upset the poor victim" about it.
There are plenty marginalised and socially inadequate voices who are the most strident attackers.

Against:

( 1 ) Is it possible to consistently enforce tighter standards on it in general? As unenlightened said, there's extreme ambiguity once you remove the clear cut "just flaming" posts. I suspect that tighter standards promote the passive aggression of academic discourse rather than good old fashioned accusatory tirades and insulting comments. — fdrake

The question of consistency is problematic, given individual, subjective decisions.
That is perhaps an argument for clearer guide-lines for mods, including type of behaviour to look out for and knowledge of persistent offenders, or those flagged for consideration.
Not everyone wants to be seen as a 'flagger' and some think it should be handled in thread.
Sometimes, that exacerbates matters...

[BTW, the flagging system doesn't allow the person to give a reason. The post is then deleted or not depending on mod judgement without much in the way of communication.
Deletion isn't always the answer.]

There will always be passive aggression, usually, a coping mechanism to avoid direct confrontation.

Ah, you have nostalgia for Good old-fashioned Boys' Own Own Fisticuffs, eh?
How very exciting and so old hat :roll:

(2)....The kind of mod actions being discussed would typically be edits rather than deletes - dialogues regarding conduct rather than warnings. That's a lot more work. I doubt anyone actually wants the job of going through every post of every political thread and trying to hold it to a consistent editorial standard. — fdrake

Why edits?
It only makes the culprit look better than he/she is, if there is no reason given for it.
So not easy to identify any pattern.

Why not a simple warning? Why would a dialogue be necessary?
First Warning, 2nd... a process...

It does involve more work but perhaps it's worth it.
How else do you nip it in the bud before escalation?
There's no need to go through every political thread with a finely tuned nose for trouble.
Even participants can usually smell the shit a mile away...

( 3 ) Excluding intemperate voices in political discussion is its own form of exclusion; I personally want people to be able to express anger in political discussion, with representatives of positions which make them angry. I don't know how to editorialise anger in debate without running into all the ambiguities regarding its expression. — fdrake

'Intemperate' - lack of self-control.
When it has adverse effects on others, to the detriment of respect for other perspectives, that is not a good look for a philosophy forum, IMO.
It, in itself, excludes rational thought and expression.

Anger, of course, is different and natural when it comes to issues concerning justice and equality etc.
There is just anger and OTT anger, that intemperance you talk of.
If a mod can't see the difference in type and effect, then perhaps some training is required.

Phew. I've just returned from a very pleasant walk through woods to a loch, herons and boys fishing...
Think I might have to leave this again...

Interesting and useful reflections...

Really great to see such excellent communication of thoughts.

I think the Ukraine thread got very out of control and we should have done better to reel it in early. It resulted in lingering bad feelings.

The question is whether we need a rule change (as you suggest) for political threads, or do we just need to acknowledge we didn't properly enforce that thread. That's the ongoing discussion. — Hanover

The Ukraine was the very worst of examples; I doubt we will see the like again but we might.
There are still lesser but just as bad examples of extended aggression e.g. related to Climate Change. Having a 'General' thread where anything goes, until it doesn't...because of something deemed 'irrelevant' even if it did relate to the topic. What?
I won't go on about that because I wasn't involved but I did notice what I would regard as a bullying element. Complaints were made, not by me. I stood by...

Whenever the word 'bullying' is used or implied, it triggers accusations that the person is thin-skinned, sensitive and 'playing the victim'. Sometimes the ''It was only a joke, can't you even see that?!'' card is played. Basically, there is a ganging up and it's not a pretty sight.
It can have long-lasting effects if the person isn't strong enough to withstand the attacks; physical, verbal or psychological.

To return to the question of a potential rule change for political threads.
I argued for a higher level of moderation because it matters that people can discuss and learn from different perspectives without ducking bullets or being caught in crossfire. Or even being targets of abuse.
In the high mist of low emotion, views and arguments can suffer. Nothing can be seen or listened to clearly or carefully.

Right now, the level of moderation is low, lots of leeway given.
My preference is for a higher level of vigilance.
If that can't be the case, why not reach a compromise?
The middle way, as is the case for all other threads.

Yes, I actually agree with you if you are saying that you would prefer a tighter rein on flaming and ad homs, and the more controversial the topic, the more thorough the editing, rather than the more lax. — unenlightened

It really is as simple as looking at what seems to be current policy and questioning it.
Not editing as such, just being a bit more aware of what's going on and not being a part of the problem.
A bit of care and vigilance applied with as even a hand as possible. No obvious favouritism.
But as you say:

It's always an ongoing discussion, and one expresses a view, and then gets on with philosophy, or if it is unbearable, takes ones' pearls elsewhere. — unenlightened

Why should it be allowed to become so toxic that some people decide to leave?
We don't even know who takes one look at TPF and thinks, "Not for me, thank you very much, bye!"
The views that are not expressed and so not heard.

Never mind. It's all been said before. Time to give it yet another rest.
Hope Mrs un's book does well.
Be well :sparkle:

I don't care at this point. — Tate

I'm guessing most of the mods and participants are passed the point of giving a damn as well.
So it all balances out nicely.

I'm always curious as to what 'taking it to the team' looks like, in terms of action.
End of thread.

f you are passionate about philosophy, as I hope we all are, then I expect that passion to overflow from time to time and I expect to get moderated; it's not the end of the world — unenlightened

It's not about occasional passionate exchanges but extended 'vitriol and inflamed tempers' in a political discussion about a serious event or subject. As per the Ukraine Crisis thread.

Also see 'simple question' and the OP with key parts in bold.

:up:

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

Mods are not gods — Agent Smith

But some might like to think they are :wink:

Not asking for the 10 Commandments.

Only to consider a simple question and give feedback re:

So, Politics is also seen as exceptional and less moderation is the rule.
Should this be the case? — Amity

Also follow-up to:

I will bring this up with other mods... — fdrake

Do you have an answer to the question or any practical, down-to-earth suggestions?
Or is it a case of *shrugs*.
Have to admit, I'm at the shrugging stage myself... :roll:

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...

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: