Random Questions

[Rapt0rzzz]

I was reading TSZ and am wondering about the part in the very beginning where Zarathustra says “Give me something to eat and to drink; I forgot about it during the day. He who feeds the hungry refreshes his own soul: thus speaks wisdom.”

But wasn’t Nietzsche against pity? Don’t you have to pity someone in order to help them? If you don’t pity them, why would you help them? If you don’t pity the person, you are not going to get anything out of your act. If you don’t feel bad for them and don’t feel that your act makes them better, how are you affected in a positive way? How else would it refresh your soul? I don’t see how you can get something out of helping someone without first feeling pity for them. Perhaps I am not differentiating between pity and something else? Perhaps recognizing someone’s bad situation and helping for your own benefit? But to recognize their bad situation you must realize that it is bad and one doesn’t want to be in it - wouldn’t you have to empathize/ have pity for them?

And does anyone else think it odd that there are so many “God Bless America” bumper stickers? Although there is nothing wrong with blessing the country you live in, doesn’t it seem more Christian-like (what Christ Himself would want more) to instead bless THE WORLD? Or even YOUR ENEMY (as Jesus Himself said to do)? Should we not instead say God Bless the World? It just seems ridiculous to claim that God should bless America while leaving the rest of the world out. Christians should love everyone, not just America. Likewise, they should want all of the world to be blessed, not just the small population in America.

And similarly, what about the bumper stickers that say “Support our Troops”? Now, I know not all of the people with these are Christians, but I’m talking about those who are. (I know this because they have this on the same car that they have the God Bless America stickers.) It should go without saying that all Christians should be AGAINST the war. I wont waste time quoting the Bible or anything. Even though they should be against the war, they can still support the troops. It was not the troop’s decision to go to war. So it’s fine to say support our troops. But why just OUR troops? Why not everyone who is involved in the war? (“good” AND “bad”) Or, instead of saying support our troops, they should say “Support ending the war” This would end the war which they should be against, AND it would support our troops by getting them out of the war! “Support our troops” is just limited. We all want to support them - but HOW do we support them? That’s what’s important. And you do that (especially being a supposed Christian) by getting them out. Both of these stickers seems against Christ’s teachings.

Thoughts?

[Impenitent]

who said “I am the sword”?

-Imp

[ANightAtTheOpera]

“I am the walrus”

[CharlieGadfly]

In some communities, you don’t help anyone out of pity. Nor do you help others because your self-interest is properly understood, or because your self-interest is enlightened.

Rather, you help others as a measure of your own strength. Like adding wieghts to a barbell; It let’s you know how much you can lift. It is usually a good thing to be able to lift more.

So you see, in some communities, it is not about the recipient; it is about you. And, if you stand on a pile of someone elses bones, you honor that fact by helping their decendents; NOT because those decendant’s are worthy, but simply because you are honorable and it makes you stronger. And, hopefully, your bones will be worth standing on.

[morthaur]

@Rapt0rzzz

I was reading TSZ and am wondering about the part in the very beginning where Zarathustra says “Give me something to eat and to drink; I forgot about it during the day. He who feeds the hungry refreshes his own soul: thus speaks wisdom.”

But wasn’t Nietzsche against pity? Don’t you have to pity someone in order to help them? If you don’t pity them, why would you help them? If you don’t pity the person, you are not going to get anything out of your act. If you don’t feel bad for them and don’t feel that your act makes them better, how are you affected in a positive way? How else would it refresh your soul? I don’t see how you can get something out of helping someone without first feeling pity for them. Perhaps I am not differentiating between pity and something else? Perhaps recognizing someone’s bad situation and helping for your own benefit? But to recognize their bad situation you must realize that it is bad and one doesn’t want to be in it - wouldn’t you have to empathize/ have pity for them?

For those unfamiliar with the passage—

@Friedrich Nietzsche

Zarathustra did not say a word and went on his way. When he had walked for two hours, past forests and swamps, he had heard too much of the howling of the wolves, and he himself became hungry. So he halted at a lonely house where a light was burning.

“Hunger attacks me,” said Zarathustra, "like a robber. Among forests and swamps my hunger attacks me, and late at night.

“My hunger is certainly capricious. Often it comes to me only after a meal, and all day it has failed to come: where has it been?”

And at that Zarathustra knocked on the door of the house. An old man appeared; he carried a light and asked: “Who comes to me and my bad sleep?”

“A living one and a dead one,” said Zarathustra. “Give me something to eat and drink, I forgot about it during the day. Whoever feeds the hungry refreshes his own soul: thus speaks wisdom.”

The old man withdrew, but came back immediately and offered Zarathustra bread and wine. “A bad country for the hungry,” he said; “that is why I live here. Animal and man come to me, the hermit. But bid your companion eat and drink also, he is wearier than you.” Zarathustra answered: “My companion is dead; I shall hardly be able to persuade him to eat.” “That does not concern me,” said the old man sullenly; “whoever knocks at my door must take what I offer him. Eat, and be off!” –

@Laurence Lampert

Zarathustra’s final encounter [in the prologue] is with another outsider, an old hermit troubled by uneasy sleep. The old hermit is moved by charity, but indiscriminate charity that refuses to distinguish between living and dead in its offer of bread and wine, the Eucharist or thanksgiving meal. The bitter hermit with his forced philanthropy find no joy in giving; his surly response shows that Zarathustra’s innocent “wisdom”–that the one who feeds the hungry finds his own soul refreshed–is not true of him. Later, after he learns his lesson, Zarathustra states that he intends to sing to the hermits. His song will enable these outsiders to be of good cheer and to distinguish living from dead in the giving of gifts; it [the song] will be a grateful gift in return for the gift of discriminate giving taught unintentionally by the bitter hermit.

The passage is in part a critique of pity, and of reflexive charity, as a motivator of gifts. Christian charity is indiscriminate, and offers gifts to worthy and unworthy recipients alike. Yet there is no joy in the gift-giving when it is motivated reflexively, as a conditioned response; and there is no joy in it when it is motivated by the need to do such things in order to gain eternal life (i.e., falsely). Nietzsche suggests not only that one should discriminate between recipients, but that charity be performed on the basis of ethics, not pity. In this he follows the ancients, of course, for whom right-living included such things as aid to weary travellers. In that sense, as CharlieGadfly noted above, gift-giving is really about you and how you choose to live.

@Rapt0rzzz

And does anyone else think it odd that there are so many “God Bless America” bumper stickers? Although there is nothing wrong with blessing the country you live in, doesn’t it seem more Christian-like (what Christ Himself would want more) to instead bless THE WORLD? Or even YOUR ENEMY (as Jesus Himself said to do)? Should we not instead say God Bless the World? It just seems ridiculous to claim that God should bless America while leaving the rest of the world out. Christians should love everyone, not just America. Likewise, they should want all of the world to be blessed, not just the small population in America.

Amen, brother.

@Rapt0rzzz

And similarly, what about the bumper stickers that say “Support our Troops”? Now, I know not all of the people with these are Christians, but I’m talking about those who are. (I know this because they have this on the same car that they have the God Bless America stickers.) It should go without saying that all Christians should be AGAINST the war. I wont waste time quoting the Bible or anything. Even though they should be against the war, they can still support the troops. It was not the troop’s decision to go to war. So it’s fine to say support our troops. But why just OUR troops? Why not everyone who is involved in the war? (“good” AND “bad”) Or, instead of saying support our troops, they should say “Support ending the war” This would end the war which they should be against, AND it would support our troops by getting them out of the war! “Support our troops” is just limited. We all want to support them - but HOW do we support them? That’s what’s important. And you do that (especially being a supposed Christian) by getting them out. Both of these stickers seems against Christ’s teachings.

Exactly so. Jesus would be utterly opposed to Christianity. It never ceases to amaze me how genuinely little regard the words of Jesus are held in by his purported ‘followers’.

[Rapt0rzzz]

@morthaur

The passage is in part a critique of pity, and of reflexive charity, as a motivator of gifts. Christian charity is indiscriminate, and offers gifts to worthy and unworthy recipients alike. Yet there is no joy in the gift-giving when it is motivated reflexively, as a conditioned response; and there is no joy in it when it is motivated by the need to do such things in order to gain eternal life (i.e., falsely). Nietzsche suggests not only that one should discriminate between recipients, but that charity be performed on the basis of ethics, not pity. In this he follows the ancients, of course, for whom right-living included such things as aid to weary travellers. In that sense, as CharlieGadfly noted above, gift-giving is really about you and how you choose to live.

Thanks for that, it made a lot of sense. How exactly does Nietzsche propose we differentiate between those who are worthy of gift-giving and those who are not? Is it a personal choice to be made by the individual? What would he say to one wanting to give money to help those in Darfur? Or, if you know the argument, what would he say to Singer’s argument that we SHOULD give to them?

I have a hard time wanting to help people unless I feel pity for them. Why would I help them if I felt not pity? If I didn’t feel pity, then I can’t possibly see anything wrong with their current situation. So why help?

Don’t we help others to feel good about ourselves? Isn’t that the same as the Christians do? We both do good to gain something for ourselves. Either to avoid eternal hell and get into heaven, or to feel good about myself. What’s the difference?