When Zarathustra was alone, however, he said to his heart: "Could it be possible! This old saint in the forest hath not yet heard of it, that God is dead!"
Taken from the prologue to: "Thus spake Zarathustra".
What I find interesting about this one line is that Nietzsche (so far) seem to consider Zarathustra an atheist (when clearly he was not). Any thoughts, anyone? 'Cause I don't know what to make of this.
Very interesting reading, this. 🙂
"Altered is Zarathustra; a child hath Zarathustra become; an awakened one is Zarathustra: what wilt thou do in the land of the sleepers?"
My interpretation is that Zarathustra is reborn spiritually in the mountains and the sleepers are all those whom have not yet seen what Zarathustra has seen. It's a classical "I have seen the light"-complex. Isn't it? 🙂
I have to keep in mind that this is all Nietzsches words. We don't know what Zarathustra himself would have thought about this.
Well, I should probably not post every little thing that I find interesting in this book. It would be a terribly long, one-sided thread if I did. I'll try and keep things to myself for at least a chapter or two. 🙂
1 edit
Originally posted by stocken(1) I never thought that Nietzsche’s Zarathustra really had anything to do with the historical person, but rather Nietzsche’s own fictional character. I don’t recall reading anything about why he chose to name his character Zarathustra…?
When Zarathustra was alone, however, he said to his heart: "Could it be possible! This old saint in the forest hath not yet heard of it, that God is dead!"
Taken from the prologue to: "Thus spake Zarathustra".
What I find interesting about this one line is that Nietzsche (so far) seem to consider Zarathustra an atheist (when clearly he was not). Any thoughts, anyone? 'Cause I don't know what to make of this.
(2) There is some argument over whether Nietzsche himself was an atheist, or whether his “God is dead” declaration had only to do with the Judeo-Christian concept of God. He declared that his own God was Dionysus—but I frankly think he was speaking symbolically and archetypally.
He thought that reasonable people could no longer accept the reality of that God, and feared that the “death of God” would usher in a period of terrible nihilism. N’s “solution” was amor fati: a daring existential “Yes!” to life without the grounding of organized religion or metaphysics, even in the face of eternal recurrence (again, whether or not N thought that life is really characterized by some kind of eternal recurrence—and in what ways and to what extent—or whether this was a kind of thought experiment, is arguable; I tend to go with the latter). Thus he is classed as one of the first existentialists—or at least a proto-existentialist.
(3) Thus Spoke Zarathustra is a difficult book. The one way I am convinced that it cannot be read is as a series of “wisdom teachings,” ala Kahlil Gibran’s The Prophet. Nietzsche scholar Kathleen Higgins, in her book Nietzsche’s Zarathustra points out the complex narrative thread, that includes Z’s errors, false-starts, re-thinking, etc.
EDIT: At least, I found it difficult, and was expecting a string of aphoristic wisdom-teachings--naive me!
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdI'm beginning to see, just a few pages into the book, that it is indeed more of Nietzsche speaking than Zarathustra the historic person. For instance, just a few pages after NZ has walked down the mountain and through the forest, he begins speaking of the superman to the people within the village.
(1) I never thought that Nietzsche’s Zarathustra really had anything to do with the historical person, but rather Nietzsche’s own fictional character. I don’t recall reading anything about why he chose to name his character Zarathustra…?
(2) There is some argument over whether Nietzsche himself was an atheist, or whether his “God is dead” declaration h ...[text shortened]... i]I[/i] found it difficult, and was expecting a string of aphoristic wisdom-teachings--naive me!
A new-found friend of mine from Iran learned a lot about zoroastrianism while living there. He claims that NZ has characteristics that would apply to the real Zarathustra. He brings up two examples: 1) NZ speaks of the superman, and Zarathustra spoke of every mans ability to better themselves through thinking the right thoughts. NZ and Z is not equal, but the basic message seems to be the same (everyones ability to be better than they are - although I'm not sure that applies to Nietzsche's own thoughts since I haven't read enough about him yet), and 2) NZ and Z both seem to have a focus on the earthly life, rather than the unearthly. They both seem to say that most of the things we wish for in an afterlife, can be found right here in life. They're both very social characters proclaiming that everyone (and not just a selected few) can reach a higher way of being in life.
I will keep reading this book and talk to people whom knows a little more than me about zoroastrianism. See what they think. Are there any similarities between NZ and Z? More importantly, what are the clear differences between them? If nothing else, it should give me a satisfactory reading and a deeper understanding about Nietzsche and zoroastrianism, all at once.
(Very modern of me to expect to learn all these things from one reading... ha ha... For just ninetynine-ninetyfive, you can learn all about one of the biggest religious mysteries, in less than two weeks! Yes! You heard me... ha ha... I'm so stupid it hurts.)
Originally posted by stocken(Very modern of me to expect to learn all these things from one reading... ha ha... For just ninetynine-ninetyfive, you can learn all about one of the biggest religious mysteries, in less than two weeks! Yes! You heard me... ha ha... I'm so stupid it hurts.)
I'm beginning to see, just a few pages into the book, that it is indeed more of Nietzsche speaking than Zarathustra the historic person. For instance, just a few pages after NZ has walked down the mountain and through the forest, he begins speaking of the superman to the people within the village.
A new-found friend of mine from Iran learned a lot about z ...[text shortened]... mysteries, in less than two weeks! Yes! You heard me... ha ha... I'm so stupid it hurts.)
LOL!! You are not, of course, stupid!
I probably ought to re-read NZ. A note on N’s ubermensch: I generally refrain from translating that at all—either as superman or overman. I think it was Walter Kaufman who, in one of his (many) translations of N’s work, pointed out the significance of the mensch. A note on another of N’s controversial terms, “will to power”: he explicitly defined this as “life enhancement,” as opposed to simply the will to survive; I use the phrase “will to thrive.”
What I know about Z (as opposed to N’s Z) is what you’ve presented here—and you haven’t even sent a bill for 99.95!
Another note:
I have a monograph by a B.T. McDonough called Nietzsche and Kazantzakis (University of America Press, 1978), in which the author argues that Kazantzakis’ Zorba the Greek is K’s vision of N’s ubermensch, and the Buddha is the “last man” mentioned in NZ. It’s very interesting. (Kazantzakis apparently did his dissertation on Nietzsche.)
Originally posted by vistesdWhat I know about Z (as opposed to N’s Z) is what you’ve presented here—and you haven’t even sent a bill for 99.95!
LOL!! You are not, of course, stupid!
I probably ought to re-read NZ. A note on N’s ubermensch: I generally refrain from translating that at all—either as superman or overman. I think it was Walter Kaufman who, in one of his (many) translations of N’s work, pointed out the significance of the mensch. A note on another of N’s controversi ...[text shortened]... (as opposed to N’s Z) is what you’ve presented here—and you haven’t even sent a bill for 99.95!
Just send me your address and I'll make sure the bill gets there. 😉
I think it was Walter Kaufman who [...] pointed out the significance of the mensch
As in, "we will never be more than men, albeit if we work hard: übermensch"?
I must read a little more about Nietzsche, when I'm done reading about Zarathustra.
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdN.i.e.t.z.s.c.h.e. .a.n.d. .K.a.z.a.n.t.z.a.k.i.s... there, wrote it down. 🙂
Another note:
I have a monograph by a B.T. McDonough called Nietzsche and Kazantzakis (University of America Press, 1978), in which the author argues that Kazantzakis’ Zorba the Greek is K’s vision of N’s ubermensch, and the Buddha is the “last man” mentioned in NZ. It’s very interesting. (Kazantzakis apparently did his dissertation on Nietzsche.)
I have actually been adviced to read Askitiki. Kazantzakis supposedly brought together the philosophies of Christianity, Marxism and Buddhism. I must say I almost envy you (if it wasn't such a complete waste of valuable time) for having all these books within arms reach. Do you, by chance, possess Askitiki, as well?
Originally posted by stockenDo you, by chance, possess Askitiki, as well?
N.i.e.t.z.s.c.h.e. .a.n.d. .K.a.z.a.n.t.z.a.k.i.s... there, wrote it down. 🙂
I have actually been adviced to read Askitiki. Kazantzakis supposedly brought together the philosophies of Christianity, Marxism and Buddhism. I must say I almost envy you (if it wasn't such a complete waste of valuable time) for having all these books within arms reach. Do you, by chance, possess Askitiki, as well?
Yes, under the English title The Saviors of God: Spiritual Exercises. Well worth the read. I think you're leading me back into this stuff...
I must say I almost envy you (if it wasn't such a complete waste of valuable time) for having all these books within arms reach.
Ah yes, the “live versus read” dilemma! Also in Zorba. (Almost made me embarrassed to admit that I have Askitiki… 😳 Well, maybe my “salvation” is that I’m presently on a book-buying ban (imposed by budget)….
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdTo read is good. To live is good. Life is at its best when you have time to read and still enjoy the company of those whom you really cherish in life.
[b]Do you, by chance, possess Askitiki, as well?
Yes, under the English title The Saviors of God: Spiritual Exercises. Well worth the read. I think you're leading me back into this stuff...
I must say I almost envy you (if it wasn't such a complete waste of valuable time) for having all these books within arms reach.
Ah yes, the ...[text shortened]... $ Well, maybe my “salvation” is that I’m presently on a book-buying ban (imposed by budget)….[/b]
Wisdom of Stocken
ha ha ha ha... Well, it's true, you know... 🙂
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWhat I've always wondered about Nietzcshe's überman is if it's by birth, or if we can affect our lives to become the überman. ???
I always think of the "superior man" familiar to readers of Confucius and Lao Tse.
Or if I'm having the wrong idea entirely. Is it a way of living or being?
Originally posted by stockenWell, I'm going to steal that one. (I'll try to remember to make proper attribution...)
To read is good. To live is good. Life is at its best when you have time to read and still enjoy the company of those whom you really cherish in life.
Wisdom of Stocken
ha ha ha ha... Well, it's true, you know... 🙂