måndagen den 28:e december 2009

Nietzsche and Zoroastrianism

Dear Katherine

Since Nietzsche is the ultimate critic of classic rationalism and objectivism (instead promoting relativism), I guess you could say that he epitomizes " the ultimate in rational, objective logic and thought" in the sense that he turns those things on their heads, rationalizes against rationalism itself so to speak. So perhaps "transrationalism" or "intersubjectivism" would be more appropriate terms to define his stance. But you are absolutely right, Nietzsche DID CHOOSE Zaratahushtra as a character for a very good reason for "Also Sprach Zarathustra". His is the the Zoroastrian voice in contemporary western culture ever since.
And while Slavoj Zizek's book "The Monstrosity of Christ" is extremely interesting for us as Zoroastrians, his latest book "First As Tragedy, Then As Farce" is a rather pathetic call for the return to some kind of communism. Zizek completely lacks Nietzsche's geniality and logical coherence.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/12/28 Katherine Trammell



Isn't Nietzschean philosophy the ultimate in rational, objective logic and thought, and therefore, very much like Zoroastrianism in its purest form? Katherine

--- On Sat, 12/26/09, Special Kain wrote:


From: Special Kain
Subject: AW: [Ushta] Slavoj Zizek and Zoroastrianism
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, December 26, 2009, 10:19 AM


How did Zizek ever think that there was nothing proto-Nietzschean about his philosophy? At least in his later works he is moving towards Nietzscheanism with lightning speed.

There's an eight-part film on YouTube where Zizek discusses his book, starting here: http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=nBtsu23_ 9cM


--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Fr, 25.12.2009:


Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] Slavoj Zizek and Zoroastrianism
An: "Ushta"
Datum: Freitag, 25. Dezember 2009, 16:58



Having just read Slavoj Zizek's "The Monstrosity of Christ", I really feel I need to get hold of Zizek and introduce him to Zoroastrianism and Mazdayasna philosophy.

Just take a look at the below quotes from the final chapter and conclusion of the book:

"I advocate an ethics without morality - but not in Nietzsche's sense of immoral ethics, enjoining us to remain faithful to ourselves, to persist on our chosen way beyond good and evil. Morality is concerned with the symmetry of my relations to other humans; its zero-level rule is "do not do to me what you do not want me to do to you". Ethics, on the contrary, deals with my consistency with myself, my fidelity to my own desire. This is along the lines of Friedrich Schiller's opposition of Naivety and Sentimentality: Morality is sentimental, it involves others only in the sense that, looking at my myself through others' eyes, I like myself to be good; ethics, on the contrary, is naive - I do what I have to do because it needs to be done, not because of my goodness. This naivety does not exclude reflexivity - it even enables it: a cold, cruel distance towards what one is doing." Slavoj Zizek (2009)

Isn't this PRECISELY what Zoroastrian ethics deals with (although I disagree with Zizek that there is any difference between him and Nietzsche here, Nietzsche's "faithfulness to oneself" is identical with the Zizekian "faithfulness to one's desire")? Zarathushtra' s ethics is pure ethics WITHOUT morality, they are to the point, free from second thoughts and moralistic sentimentality: You ARE your thoughts, therefore speak your thoughts and identify with them, act your words and identify with them, this is the INHERENT GOODNESS of your good thoughts, good words, good actions, in that they are YOU and blindly YOU without allowing for any interference whatsoever.

And then look at the consequences, what Zizek advocates as a new ethical ideal, in a globalised post-postmodern world:

"This is how I would love to be: An ethical monster without empathy, doing what is to be done in a weird coincidence of blind spontaneity and reflexive distance, helping others while avoiding their disgusting proximity. With more people like this, the world would be a pleasant place in which sentimentality would be replaced by a cold and cruel passion." Slavoj Zizek (2009)

Where Zizek's point is that "a cold and cruel passion" is the ONLY real passion, the only passion which as its direct consequence CREATES GENUINE warmth between human beings and thereby in the world. Zizek advocates a Christian Atheism, a Christianity which accepts the death of Christ on the cross fully, and sees the resurrection ONLY as the appearance of The Holy Spirit as the Community of Believers. On other words: As Ahura MAZDA!

I really don't know what could possibly be more Zoroastrian than that? Will somebody please tell Zizek???

Ushta
Alexander

Inga kommentarer: