Thus Spake Zarathustra Discussion Thread

[Shu]

Seems like an old lonely man, hating society, which thinks him useless, has written a bibel-like diary of own thoughts...
Though it contains pearls and diamonds, only Hating Uselesses can take it into themselves.

In my opinion, this book stays apart from his others and it is far more Nietzscheous than all the others.

[DapperDrake]

Are we still reading this? I'm waiting for some one else to take us past the prologue and into part one. I think everything of value has already been said about the prologue so I don't really have anything to chime in with thus far.

[CognitiveArtist]

Greetings all! This is probably the best potential thread I've seen on the internet, in my eyes. I'm very fond of Nietzsche and have read Zarathustra, the Graham Parkes 2005 translation. I was surprised when I recently discovered Zarathustra was translated 3 times in 2005, but I understand them to all be good. The Parkes translation I found good.

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"

My interpretation of Nietzsche's understanding of nihilism is it's where there are commonplace values which everyone believes, and people believe in values because they think they "should" and not because they value particular values. My interpretation is the nihilist doesn't so much destroy values, but they destroy appreciation and emotion about particular things and values because a nihilist culture holds a narrow group of values and people don't pursue other values because they want to conform to the culture's values which they don't individually or genuinely appreciate.

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?

Walter Kaufmann did note at the beginning of his translation how inscrutable "going under" is in English and that it's problematic

Of the many "under" words, the German untergehen poses the greatest problem of translation: it is the ordinary word for the setting of the sun, and it also means "to perish"; but Nietzsche almost always uses it with the accent on "under"-either by way of echoing another "under" in the same sentence or, more often, by way of contrast with an "over" word, usually overman. Again and again, a smooth idiomatic translation would make nonsense of such passages, and "go under" seemed the least evil.

The cynical way Nietzsche portrays Zarathustra's "decline" into society is characteristic of his belief that in large groups people get things wrong. His social psychology is that you can't easily assimilate into society per se and maintain your own character, and with that valuable humanity. This is why Zarathustra is rejected by the people of the market, like the madman is when he preaches the death of God in the market in the Gay Science. People have to personally come to revelations and values. Which is why Zarathustra seeks disciples, people who have an active intent to appreciate Zarathustra and his values. This parallels Nietzsche's dense literary style, only the willing readers will sift through the text and come up with Nietzsche's meanings, and their own meanings.

Z then arrives at the town, where the people have gathered to see a tightrope walker. He gives a speech on the Superman, telling them that ordinary man must be surpassed and reproaching them for not getting on with the job. The argument clearly follows from the death of God. To extrapolate a little: though it's not really acknowledged here, there is perhaps already an anxiety here (though it may not be Nietzsche's) that in the absence of God, all we're left with is a profoundly imperfect, possibly inadequate humanity. Zarathustra's solution begins with self-abasement (which might be seen as oddly Christian): admit your imperfection; attack yourselves for the smug complacency that prevents you from admitting how much room for improvement there still is in humanity. It's almost as if, where a radical Christian might be telling the mass of sinning humanity to divest itself of its false gods in order to get closer to the true one, Nietzsche, coming at it from the opposite direction, is saying, after the death of God, there are still a host of false, banal gods with which humanity denies its appalling inadequacy and inhibits its own progress.

An interesting take on the self-abasement of the human, I didn't really notice it. At the beginning of section 3 in the prologue Nietzsche does say "What is the ape for the human being? A laughing-stock or a painful cause for shame. And the human shall be just that for the Overhuman[Parkes' translation]: a laughing-stock or a painful cause for shame." I think this is because as Nietzsche says in the death of God aphorism (125 in The Gay Science) about killing God "do we not ourselves have to become gods merely to appear worthy of it?". Any set of values even humanism is too limiting, and we have to understand any valuation is possible. I'm not exactly sure though what Nietzsche's thinking we should be ashamed of with regards to our humanity.

The rope walking metaphor is an interesting part of the prologue which I think is very telling of Nietzsche's larger philosophical themes.

Zarathustra, however, looked at the people and was amazed. Then he spoke thus:
'The human is a rope, fastened between beast and Overhuman-a rope over an abyss.
'A dangerous across, a dangerous on-the-way, a dangerous looking back, a dangerous shuddering and standing still.
'What is great in the human is that it is a bridge and not a goal: what can be loved in the human is that it is a going-over and a going-under.

(From the beginning of section 4 in the prologue)

Nietzsche seems to emphasise process. That as human beings we are fundamentally always acting, valuing, loving, hating etc. and there is no real segmentation or dialectics. Upon reading section 4 I'm uncertain as to what Nietzsche exactly meant by going-over and going-under. The sentence immediately after the above Nietzsche quote is

I love those who do not know how to live except by going under, for they are those who go over and across.

I think "going-under" is good since it's a process, that is the person who doesn't "know how to live except by going under" isn't saying "going to other people is good" or "friendship is good" but continually acts by going-under, that is seeking people. The immediacy and continuous willing of seeking others is what makes "those who do not know how to live except by going under" good. Going-over by contrast is individuation. And since Nietzsche thinks doing your own thing or valuing your own values is good, going-over appears the natural (and seemingly exclusive) way of performing Nietzsche's philosophy.

I need sleep, but I'll be back for more another time I tried to be as concise as possible, I hope my post isn't found too obese.

[DapperDrake]

yay! the thread's alive!

OK, i'll go and do some more reading now. I picked up the Parkes translation when I was last in town so I'll continue with that, however I found the Gutenberg hosted translation perfectly readable.

[Quark]

Nietzsche seems to emphasise process. That as human beings we are fundamentally always acting, valuing, loving, hating etc. and there is no real segmentation or dialectics. Upon reading section 4 I'm uncertain as to what Nietzsche exactly meant by going-over and going-under. The sentence immediately after the above Nietzsche quote is I think "going-under" is good since it's a process, that is the person who doesn't "know how to live except by going under" isn't saying "going to other people is good" or "friendship is good" but continually acts by going-under, that is seeking people. The immediacy and continuous willing of seeking others is what makes "those who do not know how to live except by going under" good. Going-over by contrast is individuation.

Yeah, the first half of the book is about that process, but how do we reconcile this with the idea of "eternal return" which is so prevalent in his thought?

[CognitiveArtist]

Yeah, the first half of the book is about that process, but how do we reconcile this with the idea of "eternal return" which is so prevalent in his thought?

I'm wondering what more precisely you find contradictory. Is it the process philosophy dimension to Thus Spoke Zarathustra with eternal return or is it the act of "going under" (which I personally don't have an exact understanding of) and the eternal return?

[CognitiveArtist]

To try and give the ball a little roll, I'll type some more of the prologue.

Section 5 is where Nietzsche first introduces "the last man" (the german is "der letzte Mensch"), in my translation though Parkes uses the gender neutral "last human", he also uses "overhuman". But I'll just refer to last man and overman, as I'm fond of the anarchic use of the word "man"

'So I will speak to them of what is most despicable: and that is the last man.'
And thus spoke Zarathustra to the people:
'The time has now come for the human to set a goal for itself. The time has now come for the human to plant the seed of its highest hope.
'Its soil is still rich enough for that. But this soil will some day become poor from cultivation, and no tall tree will be able to grow from it.
'Alas! The time will come when the human will no longer shoot the arrow of its yearning over beyond the human, and the string of its bow will have forgotten how to whir!
'I say to you: one must still have chaos within, in order to give birth to a dancing star. I say to you: you still have chaos within you.
'Alas! The time will come when the human will give birth to no more stars. Alas! There will come the time of the most despicable human, who is no longer able to despise itself.
'Behold! I show to you the last man.
' "What is love? What is creation? What is yearning? What is a star?" - thus asks the last man and then blinks.
'For the earth has now become small, and upon it hops the last man, who makes everything small. Its race is as inexterminable as the ground-flea; the last man lives the longest.
' "We have contrived happiness"- say the last men and they blink.
'They have left the regions where the living was hard, for one needs the warmth. One still loves one's neighbour and rubs up against him: for one needs the warmth.
'To fall ill and habour mistrust is in their eyes sinful: one must proceed with care. A fool, whoever still stumbles over stones or humans!
'A little poison now and then: that makes for agreeable dreams. And a lot of poison at the end, for an agreeable dying.
'One continues to work, for work is entertainment. But one takes care lest the entertainment become a strain.
'One no longer becomes poor or rich: both are too burdensome. Who wants to rule any more? Who wants to obey? Both are too burdensome.
'No herdsman and one herd! Everyone wants the same thing, everyone is the same: whoever feels differently goes voluntarily into the madhouse.
' "Formerly the entire world was mad"- say their finest and they blink.
'One is clever and knows all that has happened: so there is no end to their mockery. One still quarrels, but one soon makes up- else it is bad for the stomach.
'One has one's little pleasure for the day and one's little pleasure for the night: but one honours good health.
' "We have invented happiness"- say the last men and they blink.-'

The first bold phrase is one of my most treasured quotes by any writer, but it also contains some aspects I see as central to the difference between the overmen and the last men. The overmen push themselves, they have, as Nietzsche famously said, a "what does not destroy me, makes me stronger" attitude. The overmen believe in their values so much that they exert themselves so completely that they "live dangerously". Consequently, the overmen aren't a very prudential lot and live shorter but as Nietzsche would insist fuller lives. The kind of lives you would say "yes" to repeating infinitely, hence the purpose of the eternal return.
The last men seek the warmth or comfort, there is nothing they would risk comfort for, their values aren't that valuable to them. As it states clearly in the first bold quote, Nietzsche thinks a little chaos or tragedy is good, or better useful or edifying. The idea being chaos spurs on great ideas and actions, as Nietzsche claims all great people were necessary (that is, they had great tough circumstance to rise above). The last men endeavor to have no circumstances that are ever troubling. This involves destroying the "pathos of distance", which is practically equal to the bell curve of social sciences; there is always significant variation in human characteristics. The destruction of the pathos of distance by the last men creates something akin to socialism, equality in possessions, social status, health etc. I haven't read Huxley's A Brave New World but I've been told that people control themselves in that dystopian novel, which would be similar to the last men "whoever feels differently goes voluntarily into the madhouse". This situation where people decide that this full equality is worth maintaining is Nietzsche's nightmare. He believes, and in my opinion with good reason, that humans are instinctive and idiosyncratic, also they have unique dispositions which demand different things. The kind of theme behind this is individualism; just be yourself. It should be noted Nietzsche abhors platitudes which is why he uses indirect communication, e.g. the parables in Zarathustra or the fragmentary aphorisms throughout his work. Nietzsche realised people need to put in effort and actively value their values, they can't be directly put forward or there will be a Life of Brian effect

Brian: Please, please, please listen! I've got one or two things to say.
The Crowd: Tell us! Tell us both of them!
Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't NEED to follow ME, You don't NEED to follow ANYBODY! You've got to think for your selves! You're ALL individuals!
The Crowd: Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
The Crowd: Yes, we ARE all different!
Man in crowd: I'm not...
The Crowd: Sch!

The second bold phrase is perhaps the most succinct way to describe the last man "one has one's little pleasure for the day and one's little pleasure for the night", also there is no conception of greatness.

Hopefully this inspires some reading and individual valuing, I always feel a bit divided over "spilling the beans" about Nietzsche or another existentialist thinker. You feel as if you should communicate their points by a series of winks and nods, as everyone should already know enough about what's going on.

Criticism is beckoned Anything that doesn't seems right or that's completely wrong I would appreciate being voiced, so creative discussion may flourish.

[CognitiveArtist]

Thread orphaning. What a tragic phenomenon.

[jgweed]

I think in reading Z, one should bear in mind that:
1. The death of god was announced as a historical fact.
2. The justification of mankind hitherto is found in its highest individuals and not in the "herd."
3. The overman represents for N. the potential for nobility and self-affirmation. The progression from camel to lion to innocent child, parallel with the tightrope myth, is at once both a historical and a personal vision.
4. "There are no moral phenomenon, only moral interpretations of phenomenon." This aphorism is central to all of N's writings.

Z's cave should bring to mind Plato's analogy in the Republic.

I want to add that a very good site for N's writings (in the original and in translation) is The Nietzsche Channel:

http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/
Alas! The Common (how aptly named) translation is used for Z.

[GnomictheGnome]

i dont know if this is obvious or not but, im wondering if the man who came onto the tightrope and jumped over the other guy is the overman. I get that the other guy is man but if the new person is the overman how do his seemingly sinister qualities and his murder of man make him better than man. Also (not sure if im being too literal) man must "go under" to become better is this by dying. i think it would be worthwhile to the discussion to define man definitely before we learn about the overman.

[CognitiveArtist]

i dont know if this is obvious or not but, im wondering if the man who came onto the tightrope and jumped over the other guy is the overman.

A good subject to raise. In my copy of Zarathustra there is the helpful footnote which states Nietzsche had an unpublished note which read "Zarathustra himself [is] the jester who jumps over the poor rope-dancer". I'm not sure Zarathustra is just an overman (it's interesting that Nietzsche uses the concept overman scantily if at all after Thus Spoke Zarathustra), I think Zarathustra is a larger concept, but Zarathustra I'd say is at least an overman. So we can say that the overman is the man who'd jump over those in their way.
I don't think the murder of the rope-dancer is significant in a literal reading. Nietzsche very much praises competition and thinks individuals should become all they can be, but Nietzsche emphasises non-physical competition. About two dozen pages ahead in "On War and Warrior-Peoples" he says "you shall seek your enemy, you shall wage your war- and for your own thoughts!" It is a crude misreading by Nietzsche critics who think he was simply a violence advocate.

I'll just type up this passage because it's so enjoyably dramatic and vivid

For in the meantime the rope-dancer had begun his work: he had emerged through a small door and was walking across the rope, which had been stretched between two towers and thus hung over the market-square and the people. Just as he was halfway across, the small door opened again and a motley fellow, looking like a jester, jumped out and followed the first man with rapid steps. 'On you go, lame-foot,' he cried in a terrifying voice. 'On you go, you lazy beast, smuggler, paleface! Else I shall tickle you with my heel! What are you doing here between towers? You belong in the tower[Nietzsche's emphasis of "in"], and should be locked up; you are blocking the way for one who is better than you!'- And with each word he came closer and closer to him, and when he was only one step behind him the terrible thing happened that made every mouth mute and every eye stare:- he uttered a shriek like a Devil and jumped over the man who was in his way. But the latter, seeing his rival win like this, lost both his head and the rope: he jettisoned his pole and shot faster than it, like a whirlwind of arms and legs, down into the depths. The market-square and the people resembled the sea when a storm comes in: everything flew apart and around, and most of all at the place where the body was about to land.

The rope is allegorical for overcoming. You don't simply take yourself to be something, human, the lowest position in a company, an amateur athlete etc. The overman is someone who doesn't believe in fixed values, but someone who just does whatever they want and value. Nietzsche is a kind of evolutionary thinker as he does want everyone to pursue their values, and if people get injured or disadvantaged that's how it is, and the best will come forward. But Nietzshe is against evolution as it's too passive, whereas Nietzsche emphasises individuals actively taking power.
Those who overcome are above the people and the market-place, the herd. Nietzsche thinks too many people take values for granted, they don't try to overcome their values. Consequently those who just maintain values either out of conformity (herd mentality) or comfort and security (last man, slave/slave morality) are inferior. Whereas "the overcomers" are superior, as they just do what they value and take nothing for granted.
The man or the human as Nietzsche frequently reminds us is something which must be overcome. Man or the human is just a limiting valuation people regularly make of themselves ("I'm only human" etc). Like all values, man or the human is imprisoning and restraining, thus we can't even call ourselves human.
The line "you belong in the tower" is curious, as I'm pretty sure Nietzsche said that some people couldn't be "overcomers" and should just live in comfort, because if some people were to try and live dangerously and "transvaluation all values" they would just detriment themselves. Nietzsche has an interesting tension with the necessity of the herd and slave morality.
One other interesting thing is that the person who crosses the rope is a rope-dancer. Nietzsche commonly uses the theme of dancing, and that things should always be done with a cheerful attitude (this attitude can be seen in the book title Gay Science).

I'm still looking for a satisfactory definition of "going under" but I've stumbled across an interesting and useful one.

Much of the imagery here is probably borrowed from "The Allegory of the Cave" in Plato's Republic. (Nietzsche generally disliked Plato, and disagrees with him on many points; but he was greatly influenced by him nevertheless.) Plato says that an enlightened thinker is like a man who gradually struggles free of the chains of illusion in an underground cave and who learns by ascending to the world above and viewing things in the light of day, finally discovering the essence of truth by gazing at the sun itself. However, it is not enough for the philosopher to grasp truth for himself: he has a responsibility to descend back into the cave of illusion and free the prisoners of falsehood. This is what Nietzsche means by "going under."

(source)

I think "going under" has negative connotations because it seems too much like a moral obligation, an ought, and Nietzsche doesn't believe in oughts or fixed values. Going under, if anything, would be the seeking of longer life instead of shorter life. Group-work and the kind of conformist helping of others is a move away from the overman doing his own thing, my reading of Nietzsche is groups detrimentally slow down the individual. Going under is an exception, an aberration from the natural and proper overcoming which is all the overman should do at his own leisure and will.

Hope this is interesting. Criticise where you please.

[GnomictheGnome]

I definitely felt the reference and impression of the allegory of the cave in the prologue but i saw it kind of as an inverse of what Plato said. What you said makes sense, the sun has an overflow of light and Zarathustra has an overflow of wisdom and virtue, and just as the sun goes under,he must go under. CognitiveArtist you seemed to be on the right track but i think that it goes one step further"that Zarathustra (if he really is to become or create the overman) must go down into what seems to those of us who have "normal" Christian morals to be a dark cave, but is really the enlightenment that we need to become the overman, inside the cave is the Dionysian element we're seeking.
I also am open to criticism and im really only going on a whim here but i hope this is helpful to the discussion.

[jgweed]

Consider also the sustain lietmotive of under/over throughout the Preface. Uber and Unter.....