coberst wrote:"Quickie from Wiki: “The psychologist, Carl Jung, who studied archetypes, proposed an alternative definition of symbol, distinguishing it from the term "sign". In Jung's view, a sign stands for something known, as a word stands for its referent. He contrasted this with symbol, which he used to stand for something that is unknown and that cannot be made clear or precise.”
That's why I posted this: A friend of mine long ago drew this symbol - it is by the above definition a symbol and not a sign, because it does not refer to something specific and explicit, but stands for something which cannot be made clear.
"But where does the call of distress for the superman come from? Why does prevailing man no longer suffice? Because Nietzsche recognizes the historical moment in which man prepares to assume dominion over the whole earth. Nietzsche is the first thinker who, in view of a world-history emerging for the first time, asks the decisive question and thinks through its metaphysical implications. The question is: is man, as man in his nature till now, prepared to assume dominion over the whole earth? If not, what must happen to man as he is, so that he may be able to "subject" the earth and thereby fulfill the word of an old testament? Must man as he is then not be brought beyond himself if he is to fulfill this task?" [Heidegger, "Who is Nietzsche's Zarathustra?"]