Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 43

Thread: Thus Spake Zarathustra Discussion Thread

  1. #1
    Jealous Optimist Dori's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,934

    Thus Spake Zarathustra Discussion Thread

    Thus Spake Zarathustra
    ~A BOOK FOR ALL AND NONE~
    (German: Also sprach Zarathustra:
    Ein Buch für Alle und Keinen
    )



    The following directs to a free online text:
    Thus Spake Zarathustra by F. Nietzsche, trans. by Thomas Common (Project Gutenberg)

    The book is divided into four (4) parts, each of which comprises 16-22 sections. Should we comment on each section as we read them, or should we discuss each part as a whole? Or a combination of the abovementioned suggestions?

    Also, it is worth mentioning that I will be reading the Clancy Martin translation (2005). The Thomas Common translation is provided above. A note concerning translations- in my particular translation (published in 2005), there is a translator's note in which the Clancy Martin criticizes and praises three translations: the Thomas Common trans, the Walter Kaufmann trans, and the R.J. Hollingdale trans (trans = translation). The recent Clancy Martin translation seems to be the most reliable, as Martin claims "some mistakes in Kaufmann's translation are a consequence of the unreliable German edition of Thus Spoke Zarathustra available to him. Hollingdale worked with the same flawed edition." He also claims that Common had "a particularly poor edition of the work." Martin worked from "a thoroughly revised and corrected edition of Also sprach Zarathustra."


    Feel free to participate even if you're new here; with enough support this could perhaps eventually spawn an "official" philosophy book club here on Lit-Net (in the form of a subforum, maybe?). Well, one can always dream...

    Oh, and one more thing. This topic is not presuppose that the participants have already read this book. This topic is designed for members to discuss as they read. Unless anyone has any objections.
    com-pas-sion (n.) [ME. & OFr. <LL. (Ec.) compassio, sympathy < compassus, pp. of compati, to feel pity < L. com-, together + pali, to suffer] sorrow for the sufferings or trouble of another or others, accompanied by an urge to help; deep sympathy; pity

    Dostoevsky Forum!

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Mariabronn Cloister
    Posts
    16
    I guess the only place to really start is with Zarathustra's Prologue, and with that comes the kicker! Setting the stage for the Overman with the death of God. I worry how much of this would already be covered in the 'All about Nietzsche' thread. I haven't made my way through it yet.

  3. #3
    The Ghost of Laszlo Jamf islandclimber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Vancouver Island
    Posts
    1,408
    So just before we start in on the prologue I thought it would be handy to have a bit of background on why Nietzsche chose the Persian Zarathustra (or Zoroaster) as the protagonist for his work...

    to start a quote from Nietzsche on Zarathustra... (found the rest of it so here it is again)

    ]"People have never asked me, as they should have done, what the name
    Zarathustra precisely means in my mouth, in the mouth of the first
    Immoralist; for what distinguishes that philosopher from all others in the
    past is the very fact that he was exactly the reverse of an immoralist.
    Zarathustra was the first to see in the struggle between good and evil the
    essential wheel in the working of things. The translation of morality into
    the metaphysical, as force, cause, end in itself, was HIS work. But the
    very question suggests its own answer. Zarathustra CREATED the most
    portentous error, MORALITY, consequently he should also be the first to
    PERCEIVE that error, not only because he has had longer and greater
    experience of the subject than any other thinker--all history is the
    experimental refutation of the theory of the so-called moral order of
    things:--the more important point is that Zarathustra was more truthful
    than any other thinker. In his teaching alone do we meet with truthfulness
    upheld as the highest virtue--i.e.: the reverse of the COWARDICE of the
    'idealist' who flees from reality. Zarathustra had more courage in his
    body than any other thinker before or after him. To tell the truth and TO
    AIM STRAIGHT: that is the first Persian virtue. Am I understood?... The
    overcoming of morality through itself--through truthfulness, the overcoming
    of the moralist through his opposite--THROUGH ME--: that is what the name
    Zarathustra means in my mouth."

    – Nietzsche, Ecce Homo
    Nietzsche saw himself as reversing the moralities of Zoroaster/Zarathustra... he saw this religion as the beginning of all the abrahamic religions, and their mistaken moralities, so he went back to what he saw as the beginning in order to turn moralities on their heads.. upside down... because Zarathustra upheld truthfulness as the highest virtue (common theme in Zoroastrian writings, such as the Zend Avesta) and out of this came the morality that went on to form the christian moralities that he was so disgusted with, being an immoralist, he chose to use Zarathustra as the character to argue against traditional morality, and for the truthfulness of his own immorality and self-overcoming of morality... For Zarathustra preached that truthfulness is the highest virtue, and therefore if he had known that overcoming morality was a higher truth than morality itself, as Nietzsche claims is the case, then he would have preached as Nietzsche has him preach here... or so I think Nietzsche believed or would have us follow from the above..

    What I find interesting is that unlike most other religions, Zoroastrianism rejects all forms of monasticism.. it is only through active participation in life (though it has to be good) that one can keep chaos at bay, and remain happy.. it is basic to the free will supported by the religion.. his active participation in life is something Nietzsche may have supported, only his ideals and moralities on what was good, were much different than the moralities that came out of Zoroastrianism...

    well, and now on to the book.. post away!!
    Last edited by islandclimber; 04-05-2008 at 12:17 AM.

  4. #4
    Jealous Optimist Dori's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,934
    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudōnumos View Post
    I guess the only place to really start is with Zarathustra's Prologue, and with that comes the kicker! Setting the stage for the Overman with the death of God. I worry how much of this would already be covered in the 'All about Nietzsche' thread. I haven't made my way through it yet.
    I just took a gander at that thread last night (or very early this morning, rather). Even if some of this is covered in that topic, we could always discuss it again. I just finished Zarathustra's Prologue, by the way.

    Thanks for supplying the quote, islandclimber. I found it enlightening.
    com-pas-sion (n.) [ME. & OFr. <LL. (Ec.) compassio, sympathy < compassus, pp. of compati, to feel pity < L. com-, together + pali, to suffer] sorrow for the sufferings or trouble of another or others, accompanied by an urge to help; deep sympathy; pity

    Dostoevsky Forum!

  5. #5
    Of Subatomic Importance Quark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Dori View Post
    I just finished Zarathustra's Prologue, by the way.
    Dori, do you want to finish the book before you start the discussion, or can people discuss while you read?
    "Par instants je suis le Pauvre Navire
    [...] Par instants je meurs la mort du Pecheur
    [...] O mais! par instants"

    --"Birds in the Night" by Paul Verlaine (1844-1896). Join the discussion here: http://www.online-literature.com/for...5&goto=newpost

  6. #6
    Jealous Optimist Dori's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,934
    Quote Originally Posted by Quark View Post
    Dori, do you want to finish the book before you start the discussion, or can people discuss while you read?
    I intend this discussion to proceed as the discussions do in the Forum Book Club. islandclimber suggested to me via PM that we discuss each section briefly and then the part as a whole. In other words, as we read, let's say, the first part, we can discuss the sections within briefly and once finished we can discuss the first part as a whole.

    For now, if anyone has anything to say about Zarathustra's Prologue, I would advise you to do so.

    A few words: I'm finding the endnotes in my edition to be very helpful. The exclamation of Zarathustra that "God is dead!" according to the endnotes is not original with Nietzsche. It appeared in Hegel's Phenomology of Spirit (1817) and before that in a Lutheran hymn "Ein trauriger Grabgesang" ("A Sorrowful Dirge") by Johann Rist, a German poet and Lutheran pastor, in the 17th century. However, what Rist intended to say with those words was much different than Nietzsche or even Schopenhauer for that matter.

    What do you think of Zarathustra's claim that "God is dead!"?
    com-pas-sion (n.) [ME. & OFr. <LL. (Ec.) compassio, sympathy < compassus, pp. of compati, to feel pity < L. com-, together + pali, to suffer] sorrow for the sufferings or trouble of another or others, accompanied by an urge to help; deep sympathy; pity

    Dostoevsky Forum!

  7. #7
    Of Subatomic Importance Quark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Dori View Post
    I intend this discussion to proceed as the discussions do in the Forum Book Club. islandclimber suggested to me via PM that we discuss each section briefly and then the part as a whole. In other words, as we read, let's say, the first part, we can discuss the sections within briefly and once finished we can discuss the first part as a whole.
    Oh, so the discussion's already started. I didn't know whether your first post was meant as an introduction or just seeing if there was interest. Have you gotten much interest so far? These threads can be slow at first, but if you stick with it people will slowly start to join in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dori View Post
    For now, if anyone has anything to say about Zarathustra's Prologue, I would advise you to do so.
    The prologue is every before the speeches, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dori View Post
    What do you think of Zarathustra's claim that "God is dead!"?
    Well he meant that only the God of the saint is dead. Immediately after the famous "God is dead" statement Zarathustra goes on to describe his own God, the Superman (Ubermensch). The Superman takes the place in Zarathustra's mind that the Judeo-Christian deity took in the saint's.
    "Par instants je suis le Pauvre Navire
    [...] Par instants je meurs la mort du Pecheur
    [...] O mais! par instants"

    --"Birds in the Night" by Paul Verlaine (1844-1896). Join the discussion here: http://www.online-literature.com/for...5&goto=newpost

  8. #8
    Jealous Optimist Dori's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,934
    Quote Originally Posted by Quark View Post
    Oh, so the discussion's already started. I didn't know whether your first post was meant as an introduction or just seeing if there was interest. Have you gotten much interest so far? These threads can be slow at first, but if you stick with it people will slowly start to join in.
    Not much, but enough interest to get a discussion going, I think. islandclimber was the one who initially came up with the idea in the thread "Let's discuss a book...". Pseudōnumos seconded the recommendation, then KK2202 agreed (he hasn't replied to my PM though), and finally I agreed as well. I PMed Zeruiah to see if he was interested (he was looking for philosophy books to read). I'll probably PM a few more people to see if I can gather some more interest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quark View Post
    The prologue is every before the speeches, right?
    I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Zarathustra's Prologue is the section before Zarathustra's Speeches. Does that answer your question?
    com-pas-sion (n.) [ME. & OFr. <LL. (Ec.) compassio, sympathy < compassus, pp. of compati, to feel pity < L. com-, together + pali, to suffer] sorrow for the sufferings or trouble of another or others, accompanied by an urge to help; deep sympathy; pity

    Dostoevsky Forum!

  9. #9
    The Ghost of Laszlo Jamf islandclimber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Vancouver Island
    Posts
    1,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Quark View Post
    Well he meant that only the God of the saint is dead. Immediately after the famous "God is dead" statement Zarathustra goes on to describe his own God, the Superman (Ubermensch). The Superman takes the place in Zarathustra's mind that the Judeo-Christian deity took in the saint's.
    good way of putting it Quark... glad to see you here...

    Yes... Nietzsche means morality is dead... well using god, as a source of morality.. later Zarathustra says all gods are dead... which means he believes that all moralities spawned from ontological and cosmological beliefs are dead.. Heidegger suggests this means metaphysics are dead.... but I think Nietzsche just wants to say that using faith in some external god or source for reason to follow certain moral codes, value certain things, certain actions more than others, that is dead, is no longer possible.. it is the loss of all universal moral laws, all absolute values.. which is found in several of his works.. Beyond Good and Evil has several sections that talk about the loss of absolute values and moralities, and the fact that the absolute failure of the basis for morality, well that of course leads to nihilism, where nothing is of any importance, nothing is moral or immoral, nothing has any value...

    and through this we get to the idea that we will see Zarathustra promote...Nietzsche saw Nihilism as an unparalleled evil, a complete disaster, and he sought to look beyond, the Judeo-christian basis for moralities to something deeper.. and in so doing he found something deeper.. the "will to power" which requires no external universals... and is the basis of the idea of the "Ubermensch".... the Ubermensch create their own value systems, their own moralities, which at the time, were mostly considered immoralities... the Ubermensch, follows the master morality.... the christian slave morality.. and the nihilist destroys and rejects all ideas of morality... Nietzsche found master morality so appealing because it was found in the fundamental facts of all human history, in the very beginning of man, underneath all sham, moralities... he saw underlying each great man, a master morality, the morality of the Ubermensch.. and that is what this book is about and is his response to his own realization that "God is dead"

  10. #10
    Of Subatomic Importance Quark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Dori View Post
    I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Zarathustra's Prologue is the section before Zarathustra's Speeches. Does that answer your question?
    Ha, I half-spelled the word "everything." I got to the y and skipped onto the next word.


    islandclimber, that's a good overview. I'll come back tomorrow and comment some more, but right now I'm exhausted from the monster post I had to write for the Chekhov thread.
    "Par instants je suis le Pauvre Navire
    [...] Par instants je meurs la mort du Pecheur
    [...] O mais! par instants"

    --"Birds in the Night" by Paul Verlaine (1844-1896). Join the discussion here: http://www.online-literature.com/for...5&goto=newpost

  11. #11
    Of Subatomic Importance Quark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,368
    Actually, before we get to the Superman concept I'd like to talk about the enigmatic phrase "go under." In german, it's untergehen which also means "perishing" or "dying". What do you suppose Nietzsche means by this? It's mentioned on the very first page:

    "I want to give away and distribute, until the wise have once more become happy in their folly, and the poor happy in their riches.

    "Therefore I must descend into the depths: as you do in the evening, when you go behind the sea and bring light also to the underworld, you exuberant star!

    "Like you I go under--as men say, to whom I shall descend.

    "Bless me then, you tranquil eye, that can behold even an all-too-great happiness without envy!

    "Bless the cup that want to overflow, that the waters may flow golden from him and carry everywhere the reflection of your joy!

    "Behold, this cup want to be empty again, and Zarathustra want to be man again."

    Thus Zarathustra began to go under.
    Here Nietzsche uses the phrase simply to mean condescending to share. Zarathustra goes under by sharing his wisdom with the fools below. But, later this phrase takes on other meanings--particularly in reference to the Superman. What do you make of this phrase?
    Last edited by Quark; 04-07-2008 at 04:25 PM.
    "Par instants je suis le Pauvre Navire
    [...] Par instants je meurs la mort du Pecheur
    [...] O mais! par instants"

    --"Birds in the Night" by Paul Verlaine (1844-1896). Join the discussion here: http://www.online-literature.com/for...5&goto=newpost

  12. #12
    A ist der Affe NickAdams's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Some mesto, or another. Bog knows you wouldn't be able to viddy me from your okno.
    Posts
    1,481
    I'm in!

    "Do you mind if I reel in this fish?" - Dale Harris

    "For sale: baby shoes, never worn." - Ernest Hemingway


    Blog

  13. #13
    The Ghost of Laszlo Jamf islandclimber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Vancouver Island
    Posts
    1,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Quark View Post
    Actually, before we get to the Superman concept I'd like to talk about the enigmatic phrase "go under." In german, it's untergehen which also means "perishing" or "dying". What do you suppose Nietzsche means by this? It's mentioned on the very first page:

    "I want to give away and distribute, until the wise have once more become happy in their folly, and the poor happy in their riches.

    "Therefore I must descend into the depths: as you do in the evening, when you go behind the sea and bring light also to the underworld, you exuberant star!

    "Like you I go under--as men say, to whom I shall descend.

    "Bless me then, you tranquil eye, that can behold even an all-too-great happiness without envy!

    "Bless the cup that want to overflow, that the waters may flow golden from him and carry everywhere the reflection of your joy!

    "Behold, this cup want to be empty again, and Zarathustra want to be man again."

    Thus Zarathustra began to go under.

    Here Nietzsche uses the phrase simply to mean condescending to share. Zarathustra goes under by sharing his wisdom with the fools below. But, later this phrase takes on other meanings--particularly in reference to the Superman. What do you make of this phrase?
    Yes, I noticed this before in reading this.. I found it quite interesting and also somewhat ambiguous at times.. I know the old translation, just translates it as "Go Down"... but in looking at the word, in the context here I do believe like you say he simply means condescending to share... and yes, basically share with the fools below... all those who have not realised god is dead, and those who have realised it, and have replaced that with Nihilism.. they are all for the most part, fools... explaining why they don't listen, he seems to think of it as condescending to teach children... I also think even here the other meanings have to be included, as he is going down to teach about the perishing and the death of god, and all traditional morality, which again crops up later... I believe that is probably why he chose to use the word with those several meanings... it fit with what he was trying to explain... descending to teach.. but at the same time descending to teach of the death of god, the perishing of all judeo christian moralities, all uses of God as a basis for a moral code...

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5
    I have started a thread to discuss F. Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra. It can be found here:

    http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=33996

    How should we divide the book for discussion?

    ~Dori


    Glad to see that discussions have already started. I am very much new to this kind of discussions.So I have no idea what kind of discussion suits best. But my opinion is that, we discuss as we read along. And its good that we all come to a common consensus like how much shall be read in a particular duration. Like say, we shall try to cover the chapter 1 this week , kind of plans so that all are in sync. And no one feels left out either ahead of others or left behind. I wish I am clear.
    Last edited by KK2202; 04-09-2008 at 03:04 AM.

  15. #15
    unidentified hit record blp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,436
    Blog Entries
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Dori View Post
    with enough support this could perhaps eventually spawn an "official" philosophy book club here on Lit-Net (in the form of a subforum, maybe?). Well, one can always dream...
    It's a dream worth dreaming.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Joyce/ Portrait - Discussion Thread
    By Shore Dude in forum Forum Book Club
    Replies: 98
    Last Post: 10-22-2009, 10:28 PM
  2. LitNet FAQ Index:
    By Logos in forum The Literature Network
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-28-2009, 08:52 AM
  3. Obasan - Discussion Thread
    By vertciel in forum General Literature
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-13-2008, 12:18 PM
  4. Poetry discussion thread
    By chmpman in forum Poems, Poets, and Poetry
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-24-2006, 04:21 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •