I don't think people are going to Nietzsche for information about the historical Zarathustra. I picked up "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" so I can learn about Nietzsche's philosophy.
You speak with such confidence on the lack of preserved sources on Zoroastrianism, yet gladly point towards the "truth" of hinduism and the like. Beyond funny....
In Ecce Homo, Nietzsche explained why he used Zarathustra as the protagonist in his book. He describes him as the first moralist, the first rationalist, the one who introduced the concepts of good and evil. Historical Zoroaster was Apollonian figure. As you pointed out, he individuated himself from the Aryan community (similiar to Socrates in relation to the Ancient Greeks), in contrast to Nietzsche's Dionysian, amoral and irrational ideal. Thus Nietzsche's Zarathustra is actually pure anti-Zoroaster.
I think you missed the point. I highly doubt Nietchze was trying to spread lies about Zoroastrianism but rather used him as a vessel to express his own philosophical ideas.
@@KeyhanTheFreemanwell yeah but first off you say “appropriating” then go on to rant about how they can’t possibly have a correct depiction of zarathustra, like no shit he was not trying to. Why make it sound like he did something wrong by using that character
I think you might consider giving Nietzsche another try. It sounds like a lot of your frustrations arent with N himself, but with the numbnuts like Jorjani who appropriate Nietzsche for their own use. Consider: the opportunism they display wrt Zoroastrianism is analogous to how thwy use N. Ns point wasnt to give an accurate account of zarathustras life (an impossible task, as you admit yourself), it was to paint a picture of the society he felt himself attempting to overcome, and give a mytho-symbolic roadmap for those who might follow him. "Zarathustra" isnt meant to be *Zarathustra* himself, but an archetype of the prophet, one who sees beyond his own time. Its certainly not a criticism of Zoroastrianism, another thread i picked up in this video. Nieztche was deeply immersed in greek lit and philosophy. He was taking up a thread in western scholarship, the so called tension between jerusalem and athens. i think his work needs to be read in that light, and im not sure what someone not immersed in that tradition would take away from his work. You didn't really address hegel in this. Hopefully you could expand on that in another vid
I don't think Nietzsche was saying what Zoroaster actually thought, but using him as a convenient monotheist for his book's message since using someone like Jesus would have been too taboo.
I always find it comedic when Zoroastrians use Nietzsche to relate to the faith in any way. Nietzsche literally mockingly used the character Zarathustra because Zoroastrianism is one of the most dualistic religions, while Nietzsche advocates for the abandonment of the old values of distinct categories of good and evil. Although I respect Nietzsches novel and radical insights, this framework of morality if applied societally will just lead to the utter collapse of our society, which our ancestors through these religions such as Zoroastrianism, had worked so hard to maintain.
This is very interesting. Nietschze is a sort of pivot in (continental) philosophy, you can't proceed without reading him. Via Lacan, I'm most influenced by psychoanalyst Felix Guattari and philosopher Gilles Deleuze, their joint effort Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia(this title is quite self explanatory). Deleuze was the Nietschzean expert of his time. He does an extremely rigorous analysis though. I say that to say that I've always been slightly skeptical of him as a semi- appeal to authority. I've read quite a lot of passage from the text from other philosophers and I've never been impressed with the "sort" of progress he made. All he really did was tell a fat person, You're fat. Almost crass and he can't help but carry a tone of distaste for the untermensch. Ill hafta check Hegel on Zoro, never knew... I greatly appreciate how you divide Islam out of the frame as you know, we love and respect our Zoroastrian kinfolk. May Allah protect and preserve you beloved.
I sort of think of Ahura vs Angra as like Taoist yin and yang but with characteristics, personified like the greek gods personified various forces. And yin and yang is a powerful philosophy. Nevertheless, putting The Embodiment of All Evil into the world is an achievement indeed. Hinduism has Ravana and the Kauravas; it has Kali and Yama … but none of these are the Embodiment of Evil; one could argue Hanuman “nuked” Lanka unfairly for instance… Things are nuanced and there are elements of evil within the good and vice versa. There are other things I have heard vaguely resembling this dichotomy, something about Nommo and Yurugu, the Manichaeans, the whole thesis antithesis and synthesis thing. Society itself with its aristocracy and peasantry, its repugnicans and demoncraps… Two sided politics as the suicidal tendencies band once sang. But Zoroastrianism with its two fists of God has an interesting slant on things. I am a SubGenius, it’s the only religion that actually makes any sense to me. Is that OK? I actually read and re read the Book of the Subgenius. I think there is room for free will between the two sides. Aesthetics and Ethics; Form and Function. What you can explore immanently; What you can do and say transcendentally. Two sides to every story, that makes sense, right? I don’t know where I am going with this. I think it is good to write a lot, so I got this handy dandy keyboard and am playing around with it. There was some Christian preacher Bill something who did a whiteboard thing comparing Jesus and Zoroaster. That sort of got me thinking about it a bunch more. Zoroaster claims a personal revelation of God. This can be generically addressed; comparing M. Z. and say Joseph Smith, maybe L Ron Hubbard? Did any of the ancient Greeks claim to have “met” God, i think Moses got the Ten Commandments and Noah got told to build an ark… I think people who think they “met God” in an external sense may be a bit crazy. I think everyone EMBODIES god. Perhaps one could argue “from time to time”. We can discuss chains of habit. We are not accounting for the persuasive forces of institutions, or artificial intelligence for that matter. I just enjoy “embodying God” a lot. I wish I were God, sort of, it kind of sounds like fun. Like I would be a fun god I think. SO i like to think of good people as god people, and i don’t know too many people anymore. We used to all know tons of people back in the 90s. I am not a boomer but i am beginning to age, it is sort of traumatic. You don’t get to talk about it too much to many people; aging is the boiling frog exactly isn’t it. Back to Zoroaster and this let’s say generically “dichotomy school” and this let’s say “revelation school” of religions. It also features a lot of interesting characters, kind of like Hinduism does; as you say possibly he just sort of inverted those. Did he write about all those different characters, or did later followers make all that stuff up? I also heard something about ZURVAN apparently this entity represents TIME and that is the origin of both Ahura and Angry. ZURVAN = TAO - this is starting to become monotheistic again, it would be interesting to know if there is a schism in their community around this wrinkle. Not an evangelistic religion. Wasn’t Zoroaster a Hindu priest at the outset, before his revelation? Like the Buddha - therefore Zoroastrianism is an offshoot of Hinduism. My feeling is that Hinduism like SubGenius is “open source” that is to say the people can add and augment it to themselves, some of which augmentation becoming transcendent. Dogmatic, i think Zoroastrianism in contrast to Hinduism (in my experience) is Dogmatic. Like Judaism seems dogmatic, I don’t know much about it. So one thing I read on Quora i think: some ancient religious war in iran that sent the Hindus packing for India, where they settled and prospered. I don’t know if you know anything about that. Anyway I hope I am exercising free will in this comment; i have no idea where this is coming from and am “letting the fingers do the walking” which as it turns out in my life has been successful dating advice. Later !!
If you are to make an attempt to argue a person's view point... It would be helpful to illustrate that point and why you disagree with it. Simply telling me not to listen to a person because you say their view is wrong does nothing. Refute the belief or else your prescription is as bad as those whom you denigrate
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #30 ДВА В ОДНОМ [Один человек]• Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nrXy15orKhY/mqdefault.jpg)
I don't think people are going to Nietzsche for information about the historical Zarathustra. I picked up "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" so I can learn about Nietzsche's philosophy.
You speak with such confidence on the lack of preserved sources on Zoroastrianism, yet gladly point towards the "truth" of hinduism and the like. Beyond funny....
Reaaal
In Ecce Homo, Nietzsche explained why he used Zarathustra as the protagonist in his book. He describes him as the first moralist, the first rationalist, the one who introduced the concepts of good and evil. Historical Zoroaster was Apollonian figure. As you pointed out, he individuated himself from the Aryan community (similiar to Socrates in relation to the Ancient Greeks), in contrast to Nietzsche's Dionysian, amoral and irrational ideal. Thus Nietzsche's Zarathustra is actually pure anti-Zoroaster.
This is one of the worst analyses I've heard on this subject
@orangetang74 You clearly don’t know what the definition of an analysis is.
Disprove it?
I think you missed the point. I highly doubt Nietchze was trying to spread lies about Zoroastrianism but rather used him as a vessel to express his own philosophical ideas.
? Prove him wrong
@chompy_oa4840 1:40-2:10 Open your ears next time.
@@KeyhanTheFreemanwell yeah but first off you say “appropriating” then go on to rant about how they can’t possibly have a correct depiction of zarathustra, like no shit he was not trying to. Why make it sound like he did something wrong by using that character
I think you might consider giving Nietzsche another try. It sounds like a lot of your frustrations arent with N himself, but with the numbnuts like Jorjani who appropriate Nietzsche for their own use. Consider: the opportunism they display wrt Zoroastrianism is analogous to how thwy use N.
Ns point wasnt to give an accurate account of zarathustras life (an impossible task, as you admit yourself), it was to paint a picture of the society he felt himself attempting to overcome, and give a mytho-symbolic roadmap for those who might follow him. "Zarathustra" isnt meant to be *Zarathustra* himself, but an archetype of the prophet, one who sees beyond his own time. Its certainly not a criticism of Zoroastrianism, another thread i picked up in this video.
Nieztche was deeply immersed in greek lit and philosophy. He was taking up a thread in western scholarship, the so called tension between jerusalem and athens. i think his work needs to be read in that light, and im not sure what someone not immersed in that tradition would take away from his work.
You didn't really address hegel in this. Hopefully you could expand on that in another vid
COMPLETELY on point - strange how misunderstanding of ideals can produce so much commotion/knowledge/drive
interesting topic idea
I don't think Nietzsche was saying what Zoroaster actually thought, but using him as a convenient monotheist for his book's message since using someone like Jesus would have been too taboo.
Zarathustra wasn't a monontheist
@@Moviesandshows_pr To Nietzsche he was.
I always find it comedic when Zoroastrians use Nietzsche to relate to the faith in any way. Nietzsche literally mockingly used the character Zarathustra because Zoroastrianism is one of the most dualistic religions, while Nietzsche advocates for the abandonment of the old values of distinct categories of good and evil. Although I respect Nietzsches novel and radical insights, this framework of morality if applied societally will just lead to the utter collapse of our society, which our ancestors through these religions such as Zoroastrianism, had worked so hard to maintain.
This is very interesting. Nietschze is a sort of pivot in (continental) philosophy, you can't proceed without reading him. Via Lacan, I'm most influenced by psychoanalyst Felix Guattari and philosopher Gilles Deleuze, their joint effort Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia(this title is quite self explanatory). Deleuze was the Nietschzean expert of his time. He does an extremely rigorous analysis though.
I say that to say that I've always been slightly skeptical of him as a semi- appeal to authority.
I've read quite a lot of passage from the text from other philosophers and I've never been impressed with the "sort" of progress he made. All he really did was tell a fat person, You're fat. Almost crass and he can't help but carry a tone of distaste for the untermensch.
Ill hafta check Hegel on Zoro, never knew...
I greatly appreciate how you divide Islam out of the frame as you know, we love and respect our Zoroastrian kinfolk. May Allah protect and preserve you beloved.
Any video on Iranian revolution ?
@Gbastio Eventually.
U haven't understood nietzsche
I sort of think of Ahura vs Angra as like Taoist yin and yang but with characteristics, personified like the greek gods personified various forces. And yin and yang is a powerful philosophy. Nevertheless, putting The Embodiment of All Evil into the world is an achievement indeed. Hinduism has Ravana and the Kauravas; it has Kali and Yama … but none of these are the Embodiment of Evil; one could argue Hanuman “nuked” Lanka unfairly for instance… Things are nuanced and there are elements of evil within the good and vice versa. There are other things I have heard vaguely resembling this dichotomy, something about Nommo and Yurugu, the Manichaeans, the whole thesis antithesis and synthesis thing. Society itself with its aristocracy and peasantry, its repugnicans and demoncraps… Two sided politics as the suicidal tendencies band once sang. But Zoroastrianism with its two fists of God has an interesting slant on things. I am a SubGenius, it’s the only religion that actually makes any sense to me. Is that OK? I actually read and re read the Book of the Subgenius. I think there is room for free will between the two sides. Aesthetics and Ethics; Form and Function. What you can explore immanently; What you can do and say transcendentally. Two sides to every story, that makes sense, right? I don’t know where I am going with this. I think it is good to write a lot, so I got this handy dandy keyboard and am playing around with it. There was some Christian preacher Bill something who did a whiteboard thing comparing Jesus and Zoroaster. That sort of got me thinking about it a bunch more. Zoroaster claims a personal revelation of God. This can be generically addressed; comparing M. Z. and say Joseph Smith, maybe L Ron Hubbard? Did any of the ancient Greeks claim to have “met” God, i think Moses got the Ten Commandments and Noah got told to build an ark… I think people who think they “met God” in an external sense may be a bit crazy. I think everyone EMBODIES god. Perhaps one could argue “from time to time”. We can discuss chains of habit. We are not accounting for the persuasive forces of institutions, or artificial intelligence for that matter. I just enjoy “embodying God” a lot. I wish I were God, sort of, it kind of sounds like fun. Like I would be a fun god I think. SO i like to think of good people as god people, and i don’t know too many people anymore. We used to all know tons of people back in the 90s. I am not a boomer but i am beginning to age, it is sort of traumatic. You don’t get to talk about it too much to many people; aging is the boiling frog exactly isn’t it. Back to Zoroaster and this let’s say generically “dichotomy school” and this let’s say “revelation school” of religions. It also features a lot of interesting characters, kind of like Hinduism does; as you say possibly he just sort of inverted those. Did he write about all those different characters, or did later followers make all that stuff up? I also heard something about ZURVAN apparently this entity represents TIME and that is the origin of both Ahura and Angry. ZURVAN = TAO - this is starting to become monotheistic again, it would be interesting to know if there is a schism in their community around this wrinkle. Not an evangelistic religion. Wasn’t Zoroaster a Hindu priest at the outset, before his revelation? Like the Buddha - therefore Zoroastrianism is an offshoot of Hinduism. My feeling is that Hinduism like SubGenius is “open source” that is to say the people can add and augment it to themselves, some of which augmentation becoming transcendent. Dogmatic, i think Zoroastrianism in contrast to Hinduism (in my experience) is Dogmatic. Like Judaism seems dogmatic, I don’t know much about it. So one thing I read on Quora i think: some ancient religious war in iran that sent the Hindus packing for India, where they settled and prospered. I don’t know if you know anything about that. Anyway I hope I am exercising free will in this comment; i have no idea where this is coming from and am “letting the fingers do the walking” which as it turns out in my life has been successful dating advice. Later !!
Glad to say I never read that book
If you are to make an attempt to argue a person's view point...
It would be helpful to illustrate that point and why you disagree with it.
Simply telling me not to listen to a person because you say their view is wrong does nothing.
Refute the belief or else your prescription is as bad as those whom you denigrate
@brotherjongrey9375 We shouldn’t take anything you have to say seriously either.
@KeyhanTheFreeman I don't think anybody is going to take what you have to say seriously too with that voice of yours
@@orangetang74 You’d be surprised. Now, I suggest buggering off after hitting dislike and not stumbling upon this place again.
@@KeyhanTheFreeman or what?
@@orangetang74 Or else you have to deal with my voice and content that you dislike so much, doing you a favor princess.