The ultimate significance of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", and most of Friedrich Nietzsche's other books

Reply to Bret Bernhoft It would be interesting to understand what people get from this book. I have tried to read it (Kaufmann translation) several times but find it histrionic and dull. A friend of mine who is a great enthusiast of Nietzsche and this book in particular, is always talking about self-overcoming, which is curious since he is pathologically incapable of changing even the simplest aspect of his own mostly unhappy life.

Reply to Bret Bernhoft

Quoting Bret Bernhoft

moved to propose that the ultimate purpose of the book is to encourage the average man to become something greater; to stand up to his own self and demand that "it" (that being his personal constitution) evolve.

And by what process does one evolve their nature/constitution according to Nietzsche? Pain? Suffering? Incremental progress? Discipline? By developing a perfect rear-naked choke? One cannot merely demand that they stop being average and expect to stop being average - coming from someone who is painfully average in most ways.

Or did he just not focus on that? Maybe I'm treating him too much like a motivational speaker.

Reply to Bret Bernhoft Quoting Bret Bernhoft

. But, at least at the individual level, books like "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" are useful for personal transmutation, personal evolution

I think using words like ‘evolution’, ‘progress’ , ‘self-actualization’ and ‘growth’ to describe Nietzsche’s view of the trajectory of Will to Power and the aims of the Overman forces us into a rather mundane and traditionalistic reading of him. These terms presuppose some particular self-created value system that one grows within and perfects. But the aim
of Will to Power is a self-overcoming that delights in moving through endless value systems. The only growth here is a kind of self-diversification.

Quoting Joshs

But the aim
of Will to Power is a self-overcoming that delights in moving through endless value systems. The only growth here is a kind of self-diversification.

That's interesting. Is 'delights' something FN would recognize? What would moving though endless value systems be like? Sounds exhausting.

Reply to Tom Storm Reply to Tom Storm
Quoting Tom Storm

Is 'delights' something FN would recognize? What would moving though endless value systems be like? Sounds exhausting.

Nietzsche thought the greatest joy and delight was to be found in the cultivation of error and falsification, not as an opposite to truth, but as its condition of possibility. Value systems and sciences are falsifications and fictions that give us something to organize our activities around.

“What a strange simplification and falsification people live in! The wonders never cease, for those who devote their eyes to such wondering. How we have made everything around us so bright and easy and free and simple! How we have given our senses a carte blanche for everything superficial, given our thoughts a divine craving for high-spirited leaps and false inferences! – How we have known from the start to hold on to our ignorance in order to enjoy a barely comprehensible freedom, thoughtlessness, recklessness, bravery, and joy in life; to delight in life itself! And, until now, science could arise only on this solidified, granite foundation of ignorance, the will to know rising up on the foundation of a much more powerful will, the will to not know, to uncertainty, to untruth! Not as its opposite, but rather – as its refinement!”(Beyond Good and Evil)

Reply to Joshs Thanks Joshs

Quoting Joshs

The only growth here is a kind of self-diversification.

Well said. Your comments reminds me of the Chaos Magick mindset, of adopting paradigms and belief systems at will; but only for as long as it (in the sense of a tool, such as a computer) is useful to the individual. That is a sort of delightful self-overcoming which is also difficult to properly represent, as well as being an example of practicing Will to Power.

Speaking of which and along similar lines, the Will to Power framework that runs throughout "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" is similar to one's True Will, as found mentioned in Thelema. In this case, the uniting factor between Will to Power and True Will seems to be "working towards an individual's highest good, or grandest destiny".

You also make excellent points about not underestimating or misrepresenting FN's work as a writer and philosopher. I am new to Nietzsche and have only recently begun to digest what he has to share. I'm looking forward to doing more reading on the subject.

Reply to Bret Bernhoft

Quoting Bret Bernhoft

the Will to Power framework that runs throughout "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" is similar to one's True Will, as found mentioned in Thelema. In this case, the uniting factor between Will to Power and True Will seems to be "working towards an individual's highest good, or grandest destiny".

Wiki says according to Thelema, true will adapts itself to the outside world. It is “a moment-to-moment path of action that operates in perfect harmony with nature.” “The Thelemite acts in alignment with nature, just as a stream flows downhill, with neither resistance nor "lust of result".

In contrast, for Nietzsche the adapting of the organism to the world is only secondary to what the Will to Power aims at. “The ‘development' of a thing, a tradition, an organ is therefore certainly not its progressus towards a goal, still less is it a logical progressus, taking the shortest route with least expenditure of energy and cost, – instead it is a succession of more or less profound, more or less mutually independent processes of subjugation exacted on the thing…””…the pressure of this idiosyncrasy forces ‘adaptation' into the foreground, which is a second rate activity, just a reactivity, indeed life itself has been defined as an increasingly efficient inner adaptation to external circumstances (Herbert Spencer). But this is to misunderstand the essence of life, its will to power, we overlook the prime importance that the spontaneous, aggressive, expansive, re-interpreting, re-directing and formative forces have, which ‘adaptation' follows only when they have had their effect.” “Everything that occurs in the organic world consists of overpowering, dominating, and in their turn, overpowering and dominating consist of re-interpretation, adjustment, in the process of which their former ‘meaning' and ‘purpose' must necessarily be obscured or completely obliterated.”

Also according to Wiki, “Thelemites in touch with their True Will are said to have eliminated or bypassed their false desires, conflicts, and habits, and accessed their connection with the divine.” For Nietzsche there can be no ‘true’ will: all desires are false desires in that “the world with which we are concerned is false, i.e., is not fact but fable and approximation on the basis of a meager sum of observations; it is "in flux," as something in a state of becoming, as a falsehood always changing but never getting near the truth: for--there is no "truth”.
“The will to truth needs a critique – let us define our own task with this –, the value of truth is tentatively to be called into question…”

Quoting Bret Bernhoft

That is a sort of delightful self-overcoming which is also difficult to properly represent, as well as being an example of practicing Will to Power.

Will to Power is not something one practices, certainly not in the sense of divination to discover a personal outcome. Nietzsche's development of the idea is better reflected in the following from The Gay Science:

The Gay Science, 360, translated by W Kaufman:Two kinds of causes that are often confounded. This seems to me to be one of my most essential steps and advances: I have learned to distinguish the cause of acting from the cause of acting in a particular way, in a particular direction, with a particular goal. The first kind of cause is a quantum of dammed-up energy that is waiting to be used up somehow, for something, while the second kind is, compared to this energy, something quite insignificant, for the most part a little accident in accordance with which this quantum "discharges" itself in one particular way-a match versus a ton ot powder. Among these little accidents and "matches" I include so-called "purposes" as well as the even much more so-called "vocations" : They are relatively random, arbitrary, almost indifferent in relation to the tremendous quantum of energy that presses, as I have said, to be used up somehow. The usual view is different: People are accustomed to consider the goal (purposes. vocations, etc.) as the driving force, in keeping with a very ancient error; but it is merely the directing force; One has mistaken the helmsman for the steam. And not even always the helmsman, the directing force.
Is the "goal," the "purpose'' not often enough a beautifying pretext, a self-deception of vanity after the event that does not want to acknowledge that the ship is following the current into which it has entered accidentally? that it "wills" to go that way because it must? that is has a direction, to be sure, but -- no
helmsman at all?
We still need a critique of the concept of "purpose."

I read a pretty good amount of Frantic Freddie's work during my increasingly distant youth. I think that his writing is largely narrative and emotive, and this makes him difficult to understand, but oddly at the same time it makes it easy to believe him to be sympathetic with particular views, some of them extreme.

But then I'm a fan of quietism in philosophy, and grand statements and proclamations by philosophers (as in Zarathustra) leave me cold.

Reply to Paine Great quotes. Thanks.

Quoting Bret Bernhoft

Or at least what purpose or role do these books serve?

Re-evaluation of values, is the short answer... more specifically re-evaluation of values after our belief in the Gods or the God of old had waned. His writings are essentially a bunch of perspectives on these values, after they had lost their foundation, and so were in need of another justification, which people hadn't realized yet.

Quoting ToothyMaw

And by what process does one evolve their nature/constitution according to Nietzsche? Pain? Suffering? Incremental progress? Discipline? By developing a perfect rear-naked choke? One cannot merely demand that they stop being average and expect to stop being average - coming from someone who is painfully average in most ways.

Or did he just not focus on that? Maybe I'm treating him too much like a motivational speaker.

Yes I don't think his audience was the average man.

I think he had an idea of a hierarchy or an ordering of instincts or drives. A well turned out man has these instincts ordered in particular ways, that worked for them and in their environment. I think he did view suffering and pain certainly as being instrumental in that process, but not exclusively so. The whole of life could be seen as an opportunity for trial and error.

Josh has the right idea about his general epistemology, if you could call it that. We can only come closer to truth through falsification, through error. We need categorization, "containers to put empirical data in", even if those don't really exist in some strict delineated way in reality and are ultimately arbitrary. This is one of his key insight IMO, that they are not polar opposites (as philosophers are prone to view them), but one is a condition for the other. A lot follows from that... it's better to try something, anything, even if it turns out to be wrong, than nothing at all.

Maybe that could even be a very crude summary of his philosophy, you try stuff and you fail, you try again, ad infinitum... and you learn to love the process along the way.

Quoting ChatteringMonkey

Yes I don't think his audience was the average man.

I agree. It is the exceptional man "who has organized the chaos of his passions, given style to his character, and become creative. Aware of life's terrors, he affirms life without resentment." -- Walter A. Kaufmann

In: The Encyclopedia of of Philosophy, Vol. 5, Pages 504-514, Macmillan, New York. at page 511.

Quoting Bret Bernhoft

the ultimate purpose of the book is to encourage the average man to become something greater; to stand up to his own self and demand that "it" (that being his personal constitution) evolve.

Quoting ChatteringMonkey

Yes I don't think his audience was the average man.

Quoting Vaskane

that Nietzsche's intended audience WAS the common man, but the common man, seems to miss the points Zarathustra makes, blinking thereby ...

Who are the average man and common man?

Quoting Bret Bernhoft

I recently finished reading "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", and am moved to propose that the ultimate purpose of the book is to encourage the average man to become something greater; to stand up to his own self and demand that "it" (that being his personal constitution) evolve. Which is what (in my opinion) a lot of Friedrich Nietzsche's writings are ultimately directing the readership to do, grow.

But why should this be the purpose of Nietzsche's writings? Out of compassion, or political initiative? This doesn't make sense, given that N. saw compassion as a weakness and didn't believe in politics.

Quoting Vaskane

Zarathustra declares he will not seek to gather his sheep but let those who have the eyes and ears for his (Nietzsche's) words come to him!

Who is supposed to be Zarathustra? Here in your statement above, it sounds like you are implying Z. was N. Would he be Nietzsche himself? Or some other bloke?

Reply to Bret Bernhoft
My understanding of 'Thus Spoke Zarathurstra' is that it involves a process of 'waking up' , beyond the everyday conventions of 'robotic' functioning. This includes conformity to religious perspectives. I see this work of Nietzsche as signifying the depths of any genuine quest within philosophy, which involves all questioning of conventions, religious, or probably, all ideologies. The book explores this, especially in the form of metaphorical understanding.

Quoting ChatteringMonkey

...which people hadn't realized yet.

Is this part of the reason why his writings remain so influential?

Quoting Vaskane

People like me, and even more complacent individuals still. I wont lie, I'm in a cozy spot in my life, for once, and yet, it's like that feeling of being fulfilled has resided and now I seek new drives to fulfill.

Everyone is unique in their experience, background, content of life, thoughts and perception, and also in value judgements too. In that respect, I am wondering, if there is a man called "average man" or "common man". From the description about you in the post, you appear to be an unique man rather than average or common man.

Quoting Vaskane

Nietzsche is a man who talks to himself, in doing so, he looks up to his archetype of the "old wise man," which to him, has always been Zarathustra.

I have a book called C. G. Jung's Seminar on "Thus Spake Zarathustra", and in it, they talk about Zarathustra having much similarity with Jesus - for example, they both had disappeared for some time from the profane world, Jesus wondered in the desert field, and Z. lived in the no man's mountain cave. After the disappearance, they returned to the profane world to preach to people etc.

But then I was under impression that Nietzsche was an anti christian, and atheist declaring "God is dead." Why would he make a religious human God as the preaching main character of his book?

C G Jung Seminar on "TS Zarathustra" also says the book has many religious and psychological symbolism, and they talk about various symbolism, and possible underlying philosophical, religious and psychological meanings related to the symbolism in Thus Spake Zarathustra. Interesting, but it looks like "Thus Spake Zarathustra" is not for reading with the analytic philosophical approach.

Reply to Bret Bernhoft Quoting Bret Bernhoft

..which people hadn't realized yet.
— ChatteringMonkey

Is this part of the reason why his writings remain so influential?

Yes, one of the reasons probably... Nietzsche's main question, how we get beyond Christian values after the dead of the Christian God is still an open question. But other reason also play a role no doubt, he was a very good writer, he has a knack of drawing you in... he's a tempter ;-).

Quoting Corvus

Who is supposed to be Zarathustra? Here in your statement above, it sounds like you are implying Z. was N. Would he be Nietzsche himself? Or some other bloke?

Historically zarathustra was the first monotheist, inventor of the good and evil dualism.... the archetype of prophet-moralist leading people astray, away from the earth towards some abstract ideal.

Nietzsche choose him as a mouthpiece for his philosophy because he symbolises everything Nietzsche thinks is wrong about these kind of wisdom-traditions.

Quoting ChatteringMonkey

Yes, one of the reasons probably... Nietzsche's main question, how we get beyond Christian values after the dead of the Christian God is still an open question. But other reason also play a role no doubt, he was a very good writer, he has a knack of drawing you in... he's a tempter ;-).

Interesting. I'll admit, and it's probably obvious, that I'm a novice in terms of Nietzsche's philosophies. But his works are indeed interesting, so I appreciate the extra context.

Quoting Jack Cummins

My understanding of 'Thus Spoke Zarathurstra' is that it involves a process of 'waking up' , beyond the everyday conventions of 'robotic' functioning. This includes conformity to religious perspectives. I see this work of Nietzsche as signifying the depths of any genuine quest within philosophy, which involves all questioning of conventions, religious, or probably, all ideologies. The book explores this, especially in the form of metaphorical understanding.

I can see what you're saying. Do you see "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" as being a product of it's time and environment? Or does it represent a more timeless quality as a book?

Quoting Vaskane

but yes, the figure of Zarathustra in Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra shares similarities with both Jesus and Nietzsche.

Quoting Vaskane

Well, that is, any Christian other than Jesus, whom he considers the only true Christian. Nietzsche speaks exceptionally high of Jesus:

So it was natural for Zarathustra was depicting Jesus, and tacitly Nietzsche himself too. I am glad that I am learning something about Nietzsche with this discussion. Thanks. :pray: :up:

Quoting Vaskane

For example, a lot of people think that the collective unconscious is something where people send telepathic messages/vibes to other people etc etc, which is just hilarious cause the collective unconscious is more like

The collective consciousness is an interesting concept in philosophy of psychology. It reminds me of the book by Georges Bataille called "Eroticism", but much of Jung's psychology seems to be based on the concept.

Will read the rest of your post later, as I have loads of work to clear today :( Will come back with more points when things get a bit quiet here. Good day~

Reply to Bret Bernhoft One other straightforward reason for his continued influence up to now, is that most of the 20th century French philosophers took him up, they were all Nietzschians in some ways.

Quoting Corvus

So it was natural for Zarathustra was depicting Jesus, and tacitly Nietzsche himself too. I am glad that I am learning something about Nietzsche with this discussion. Thanks.

The only similarity is that Jesus and Zarathustra were creators of values. That's the one aspect Nietzsche could respect in Jesus, that he had the strenght of his convictions, and managed to overturn conventional morality and create something new to suit his character. That's why (as I said above) he choose a prophet-type as the mouthpiece for his philosophy in Thus spoke Z, because they were doing a similar prophet thing, creating new tables of values.

Where they took that exercise however, what values they created, could not be more different.

Reply to Vaskane Yes sure that's also a big part of it, he tempts people who aspire to greatness, many among them were artists, the list is endless.

Reply to Vaskane I don't see how that proves your point. It describes the "kingdom of heaven" as a psychological state to be attained here on earth... that is the idea of not resisting to anything anymore, of turning the other cheek.... out of an oversensitivity to pain. Bliss. He describes it, but that doesn't mean he subscribe to it. Nietzsches whole philosophy is about making distinctions and valuation based on those distinctions, wherein pain plays a vital role... they couldn't be much further from eachother.

Reply to Vaskane Also he deemed the old testament much higher than the new testament, the gospel. So a rejecting of Jewish doctrine is not necessarily allways a positive in Nietzsches book.

Reply to Vaskane No, I don't think so. It is Dionysus VERSUS The Crucified... AGAINST the Crucified. That is the fundamental opposition he settled on in the end, after starting with Dionysus VS Apollo in the Birth of Tragedy.

Reply to Vaskane Yes I know, he disliked the church doctrines even more than the true Christian ideal.... that doesn't mean he liked Christs true teachings. It is possible to dislike multiple things and for different reasons.

Not making any distinctions anymore, not resisting anything anymore, is not life-affirming. The basic principle of life is precisly making those distinctions in order to affirm its particular will.

Read the passage about "inner subjectivity" being the only reality left for Christ. Christ is the orginal hippie in search for eternal bliss. Projecting your will outward into the world doesn't matter anymore, it's all about feeling good.

Quoting Vaskane

They consequently are versus each other, Complimentary Opposites PAIRING to generate something greater.

Yes it was his first book, immature and still under the influence of Schopenhauer (and Hegel) as he said so himself. He views evolved over time, and he moved progressively more towards the dionysian later. Either way Apollo and Dionysus were certainly not identical like you would have it with dionysus and Christ.

Reply to Vaskane Literally the last sentence of his last work :

"Have I been understood? Dionysus versus the Crucified"

There's still a versus there. If you want to make a case that they compliment eachother and even come together in the end, by all means do, but I certainly haven't seen any evidence for that.

Reply to Vaskane

Alright I have read through it, once more, and it just seems to confirm what I already wrote earlier, Nietzsches aim is to flip the moralist/prophet project on its head.

Nietzsche:People have never asked me as they should have done, what the name of Zarathustra precisely meant in my mouth, in the mouth of the first immoralist; for that which distinguishes this Persian from all others in the past is the very fact that he was the exact 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 realm of metaphysics, as force, cause, end-in-itself, is his work. But the very question suggests its own answer. Zarathustra created this most portentous of all errors,—morality; therefore he must be the first to expose it. Not only because he has had longer and greater experience of the subject than any other thinker,—all history is indeed the experimental refutation of the theory of the so-called moral order of things,—but because of the more important fact that Zarathustra was the most truthful of thinkers. In his teaching alone is truthfulness upheld as the highest virtue—that is to say, as the reverse of the cowardice of the "idealist" who takes to his heels at the sight of reality. Zarathustra has more pluck in his body than all other thinkers put together. To tell the truth and to aim straight: that is the first Persian virtue. Have I made myself clear? ... The overcoming of morality by itself, through truthfulness, the moralist's overcoming of himself in his opposite—in me—that is what the name Zarathustra means in my mouth.

Nietzsche:I shall have an excellent opportunity of showing the incalculably calamitous consequences to the whole of history, of the credo of optimism, this monstrous offspring of the homines optimi. Zarathustra, the first who recognised that the optimist is just as degenerate as the pessimist, though perhaps more detrimental, says: "Good men never speak the truth. False shores and false harbours were ye taught by the good. In the lies of the good were ye born and bred. Through the good everything hath become false and crooked from the roots." Fortunately the world is not built merely upon those instincts which would secure to the good-natured herd animal his paltry happiness. To desire everybody to become a "good man," "a gregarious animal," "a blue-eyed, benevolent, beautiful soul," or—as Herbert Spencer wished—a creature of altruism, would mean robbing existence of its greatest character, castrating man, and reducing humanity to a sort of wretched Chinadom. And this some have tried to do! It is precisely this that men called morality. In this sense Zarathustra calls "the good," now "the last men," and anon "the beginning of the end"; and above all, he considers them as the most detrimental kind of men, because they secure their existence at the cost of Truth and at the cost of the Future.

Why Nietzsche choose Zarathustra should be clear, he was the first moralist, the first monotheist, the inventor of Good and Evil etc etc... On top of all of that, Zoroaster was the one to proclaim truthfullness as the highest virtue. And then a bit further Nietzsche clearly states that the moralist is necessarily a falsifier of reality... a liar. So you see the irony in the use of symbolism here, he used the stated values of the first moralist precisely to overcome the moral traditions he himself gave rise to...

Reply to Vaskane But there wasn't anything specifically about Jesus in the aphorisms you encouraged me to read, other than the very last sentence I had quoted.

He's an immoralist because he rejects the traditional metaphysical systems of Good and Evil moralists have set out historically.... he's beyond Good and Evil, not beyond good and bad. You can be an immoralist and still have virtues in his conception, it just won't be the traditional Platonic formula for virtues of "the good, the true and the beautiful", but rather 'vir'tu with emphasis on the latin root "vir", manly.

Quoting ChatteringMonkey

The only similarity is that Jesus and Zarathustra were creators of values. That's the one aspect Nietzsche could respect in Jesus, that he had the strenght of his convictions, and managed to overturn conventional morality and create something new to suit his character. That's why (as I said above) he choose a prophet-type as the mouthpiece for his philosophy in Thus spoke Z, because they were doing a similar prophet thing, creating new tables of values.

Where they took that exercise however, what values they created, could not be more different.

The C G Jung's seminar seems saying that Zarathustra has nothing to do with the Zoroaster religious figure or Mazdaznan sector. They seem to be in favour of paralleling Zarathustra with Jesus or Nietzsche himself.

But they conclude Thus Spake Zarathustra was Nietzsche himself talking.

Reply to Corvus Nietzsche himself yes, Jesus no, would be my interpretation. Zarathustra is the mouthpiece for Nietzsches philosophy. A lot of his next work Beyond Good and Evil is a restatement of the ideas Zarathustra expresses in Also sprah Zarathustra.

As is evident from the section from Ecce Homo I quoted above, Nietzsches Zarathustra is inspired by the Historical Zarathustra, but yes he is definately not meant to be the same, but rather the opposite, moralist <-> immoralist.

As for Jesus, I don't see why one would get the idea that Nietzsches Zarathustra is anything like Jesus, other than he is meant to be a kind of prophet-type.

I dunno, I think all of this is pretty straightforward.

Quoting ChatteringMonkey

As for Jesus, I don't see why one would get the idea that Nietzsches Zarathustra is anything like Jesus, other than he is meant to be a kind of prophet-type.

I dunno, I think all of this is pretty straightforward.

Couldn't Jesus be a symbolic figure for Nietzsche too? After all, Jesus was a loner, preached truths to the mass, and became a martyr, who suffered the betrayal from one of his disciples and punishment from the evil regime for the values he believed in.

Reply to Corvus He is a symbol for Nietzsche, but a symbol for the psychological state of bliss ("kingdom of heaven") and a symbol for the values he opposes because they are life-denying (Jesus on the cross turning the other cheek, giving universal forgiveness to mankind)... hence the "Anti-Christ".

It is true that he thought what the church made of Jesus teaching was a gross falsification (and much worse), but that doesn't mean he condoned or even subscribed to Jesus ideas.

Nietzsche in the Antichrist:I can only repeat that I set myself against all efforts to intrude the fanatic into the figure of the Saviour: the very word impérieux, used by Renan, is alone enough to annul the type. What the “glad tidings” tell us is simply that there are no more contradictions; the kingdom of heaven belongs to children; the faith that is voiced here is no more an embattled faith—it is at hand, it has been from the beginning, it is a sort of recrudescent childishness of the spirit.The physiologists, at all events, are familiar with such a delayed and incomplete puberty in the living organism, the result of degeneration. A faith of this sort is not furious, it does not de nounce, it does not defend itself: it does not come with “the sword”—it does not realize how it will one day set man against man. It does not manifest itself either by miracles, or by rewards and promises, or by “scriptures”: it is itself, first and last, its own miracle, its own reward, its own promise, its own “kingdom of God.” This faith does not formulate itself—it simply lives, and so guards itself against formulae. To be sure, the accident of environment, of educational background gives prominence to concepts of a certain sort: in primitive Christianity one finds only concepts of a Judaeo-Semitic character (—that of eating and drinking at the last supper belongs to this category—an idea which, like everything else Jewish, has been badly mauled by the church). But let us be careful not to see in all this anything more than symbolical language, semantics[6] an opportunity to speak in parables. It is only on the theory that no work is to be taken literally that this anti-realist is able to speak at all. Set down among Hindus he would have made use of the concepts of Sankhya,[7] and among Chinese he would have employed those of Lao-tse[8]—and in neither case would it have made any difference to him.—With a little freedom in the use of words, one might actually call Jesus a “free spirit”[9]—he cares nothing for what is established: the word killeth,[10] whatever is established killeth. The idea of “life” as an experience, as he alone conceives it, stands opposed to his mind to every sort of word, formula, law, belief and dogma. He speaks only of inner things: “life” or “truth” or “light” is his word for the innermost—in his sight everything else, the whole of reality, all nature, even language, has significance only as sign, as allegory.—Here it is of paramount importance to be led into no error by the temptations lying in Christian, or rather ecclesiastical prejudices: such a symbolism par excellence stands outside all religion, all notions of worship, all history, all natural science, all worldly experience, all knowledge, all politics, all psychology, all books, all art—his “wisdom” is precisely a pure ignorance[11] of all such things. He has never heard of culture; he doesn’t have to make war on it—he doesn’t even deny it.... The same thing may be said of the state, of the whole bourgeoise social order, of labour, of war—he has no ground for denying “the world,” for he knows nothing of the ecclesiastical concept of “the world”.... Denial is precisely the thing that is impossible to him.—In the same way he lacks argumentative capacity, and has no belief that an article of faith, a “truth,” may be established by proofs (—his proofs are inner “lights,” subjective sensations of happiness and self-approval, simple “proofs of power”—). Such a doctrine cannot contradict: it doesn’t know that other doctrines exist, or can exist, and is wholly incapable of imagining anything opposed to it.... If anything of the sort is ever encountered, it laments the “blindness” with sincere sympathy—for it alone has “light”—but it does not offer objections...

Quoting Vaskane

What is that to the third stage of the three Metamorphoses?

Degeneration? ;-)

Quoting ChatteringMonkey

The physiologists, at all events, are familiar with such a delayed and incomplete puberty in the living organism, the result of degeneration.

Childishness is not the same as childlike. In any case in context it seems clear to me that he doesn't mean it as a positive in this particular instance.

But alright, I will grant you that there seems to be some aspects of the dionysian in Jesus. It is speculated that Jesus was inspired by the figure of dionysus, which does make some sense to me, in the dissolution of bounderies and emphasis on love.

I also vaguely remember Nietzsche saying something along the lines of the Ubermensch being a Ceasar with the heart of Christ.

Still in context of his whole philosophy, what Nietzsche valued and so on, something seems off to me with the idea that Zarathustra is essentially the same as Jesus. Like the way he talks about Jesus in the anti-Christ seems to paint a picture of Jesus as this weak figure, oversensitive to pain and unable to deal with reality. How would one reconcile that with what Nietzsches seems to value and his positive valuation of figures like Ceasar or Napoleon... they seem nothing like Jesus.

So yeah, I still think maybe he liked some particular things about Jesus, but disliked most of the rest.

Reply to Vaskane Quoting Vaskane

With a little freedom in the use of words, one might actually call Jesus a “free spirit”[9]—he cares nothing for what is established: the word killeth,[10] whatever is established killeth.
— ChatteringMonkey

Perfectly inline with the prior parts of the section even on Nietzsche's ideas of destruction:

"Negation and annihilation are inseparable from a yea-saying attitude towards life."

Notice the quotation marks arround free spirit though. He's saying it tongue in cheek, 'technically' he's a free spirit... because nothing gets to him anymore, that is he's not a free spirit for the same reasons other free spirits are free.

And because nothing gets to him (but his inner sensations), he doesn't even negate anymore. If negation is inseperable from yea-saying, then where does that leave us?

Reply to Vaskane

The way I would make sense of it, is that Jesus is only a yea-sayer in the sense that he affirms his inner world of sensations, because he has become incapable of taking up the world as it is.... that is affirmation out of ignorance. Nietzsche would want us to affirm the world as it is right?

Quoting ChatteringMonkey

He is a symbol for Nietzsche, but a symbol for the psychological state of bliss ("kingdom of heaven") and a symbol for the values he opposes because they are life-denying (Jesus on the cross turning the other cheek, giving universal forgiveness to mankind)... hence the "Anti-Christ".

It is true that he thought what the church made of Jesus teaching was a gross falsification (and much worse), but that doesn't mean he condoned or even subscribed to Jesus ideas.

Here is a good article on Nietzsche's idea on Jesus and Anti-Christ in Wiki, and it seems to be the case that Nietzsche thought Jesus was not quite the same figure as the churches depicted him. Nietzsche seems to have liked some characters and the background of Jesus for sure.

Reply to ChatteringMonkey

Nietzsche in the Antichrist:If anything of the sort is ever encountered, it laments the “blindness” with sincere sympathy

C G Jung's seminar seems to suggest AntiChrist was a brother of Jesus who tried to undermine Jesus' values. I am not sure if it is correct fact or misreading the book on my part. This needs to be clarified and confirmed suppose. I am not familiar of the stories in the bible on Jesus, Christianity or AntiChrist at this stage, but I will be starting to read them in the near future.

"Nietzsche does not demur of Jesus, conceding that he was the only one true Christian.[28] He presents a Christ whose own inner life consisted of "wit, the blessedness of peace, of gentleness, the inability to be an enemy".[29]

Nietzsche heavily criticizes the organized institution of Christianity and its class of priests. Christ's evangelism consisted of the good news that the 'kingdom of God' is within you:[30][29] "What is the meaning of 'Glad Tidings'?—The true life, the life eternal has been found—it is not merely promised, it is here, it is in you; it is the life that lies in love free from all retreats and exclusions", whereby sin is abolished and away from "all keeping of distances" between man and God.[29]

"What the 'glad tidings' tell us is simply that there are no more contradictions; the kingdom of heaven belongs to children".[31] - WiKi on AntiChrist

Reply to Corvus

Thank you for the reference.

Wiki:The Redeemer type
Nietzsche criticizes Ernest Renan's attribution of the concepts genius and hero to Jesus. Nietzsche thinks that the word idiot best describes Jesus.

Yes, this was the idea I got from reading the Anti-Christ, that he though him to be a bit of an idiot... but an idiot can be likeable I suppose.

Also interesting that he may have gotten that description from Dostoevsky's novel the Idiot. That would make a lot of sense actually, and also explains Nietzsches ambivalence towards such a figure.

Quoting ChatteringMonkey

Yes, this was the idea I got from reading the Anti-Christ, that he though him to be a bit of an idiot... but an idiot can be likeable I suppose.

A good hearted person can be name-called as an idiot in real life even these days suppose. I don't think Jesus would have minded being the person who he was.

And he may have called Nietzsche as a sage. Nietzsche might have asked Jesus, why do you called me a sage, when they say I called you an idiot. Jesus might have replied, well hmmmm well, to a sage, everyone appears to be sages, and to an idiot, everyone appears to be idiots.

And Nietzsche would have said "That proves their saying that me calling you an idiot." was a lie and groundless rumours.

Quoting Corvus

"Nietzsche does not demur of Jesus, conceding that he was the only one true Christian.[28] He presents a Christ whose own inner life consisted of "wit, the blessedness of peace, of gentleness, the inability to be an enemy".[29]

Nietzsche heavily criticizes the organized institution of Christianity and its class of priests. Christ's evangelism consisted of the good news that the 'kingdom of God' is within you:[30][29] "What is the meaning of 'Glad Tidings'?—The true life, the life eternal has been found—it is not merely promised, it is here, it is in you; it is the life that lies in love free from all retreats and exclusions", whereby sin is abolished and away from "all keeping of distances" between man and God.[29]

"What the 'glad tidings' tell us is simply that there are no more contradictions; the kingdom of heaven belongs to children".[31] - WiKi on AntiChrist

What is I think important to realise here is that, while most of these discriptions of Jesus may sound positive to "our modern ears", Nietzsche probably wouldn't have evaluated these all that positively. "Peace", "Free from all exclusions" "away from keeping all distances", "no contradictions" etc etc... all of these things don't contribute to overcoming, but to a kind of sterile unproductive happiness. On the contrary Nietzsche might say, for overcoming you need struggle, pain, difference, hierarchies... the pathos of distance,

So in short, whileNietzsche probably descriptively agrees with all of this, his evaluation of these things is just totally different.

Rude trollish interjection:

Let’s not discount ‘The possessed’ aka ‘The Idiot’. , even if viewed optically insignificant by modern standards…

Just sayin’

Reply to Vaskane He wasn't married to it insofar it conflicts with life-affirmation. Some fictions are necessary for life,... some, not that many, truth is still important. He did choose Zarathustra for that reason.

Quoting Vaskane

?Corvus Nice, I hadn't seen these before. I'll add them to my armory!

:cool: :ok:

Quoting Vaskane

a man who asserts appearance is more valuable than truth

And what do you mean with appearance in opposition to truth, there is only appearance ;-).

Reply to Vaskane Yes I get that you don't want to claim that he wants to promote Chirstian values, but that he was inspired by Jesus specifically. I guess I just have gotten another sense from reading his work. I seems to me he got most of his inspiration for re-evaluation from the pre-socrates Greeks. That was his first intellectual love so to speak, and it seems to have stuck with him. But I could be wrong offcourse.

Quoting Vaskane

Something changed in him deeply after some revelation involving Amor Fati, and it mirrors quite a bit of that which he says of Jesus' Glad Tidings in his much later works.

You could also view Amor Fati as a classic Tragic formula, i.e. the tragic hero who aims high and knows he will fail in the end, but still loves and affirms it all anyway.

I think this is the difference with "Good tidings"/"Euangelion", in tragedy there is no good news ultimately, the only justification is life itself.

The kingdom of heaven it seems to me is a kind of psychological trick where the world gets shut out to attain inner peace. The 'heros' aim in this case is not going under, spending himself in attaining some wordly goal, the aim is inner directed... feeling good.

Nietzsche, Antichrist 33:In the whole psychology of the “Gospels” the concepts of guilt and punishment are lacking, and so is that of reward. “Sin,” which means anything that puts a distance between God and man, is abolished

I agree that Nietzsche probably saw this as an improvement upon the moralising relgions, but Jesus way is not the only way to attain that. It was absent in Greek culture too, before Socrates in Homeric Greece at least... there was no sin the Gods didn't commit themselves.

Anyway I got to go, I enjoyed the discussion.

Quoting Bret Bernhoft

Which is what (in my opinion) a lot of Friedrich Nietzsche's writings are ultimately directing the readership to do, grow.

Sounds like Jordan Peterson.

Reply to AmadeusD Peterson loves Nietzsche because Nietzsche is an atheist who can be used to support Peterson’s thesis that atheism leads to a series of blood baths, and catastrophes via the death of God. Theists seem to l like Nietzsche perhaps because he says things like if you believe in grammar, you’re still a theist.

Reply to Tom Storm That definitely sounds like Peterson's kind of leap-frog conclusion. Which sucks - despite probably inviting the Hoardes, I think Peterson is great as a psychologist. The above proposition is a good one. I wasn't knocking either writer.

But I strongly dislike Nietzsche and have grown to really pity Peterson so *shrug*

Reply to AmadeusD Peterson always strikes me as a man having a breakdown in slow motion, reciting philosophical ideas and psychological theories as a kind or catechism of reassurance.

Reply to Tom Storm Other than a predisposition to assume his views require that type of personality, I can't see it (although, I allow for the year he actually had a breakdown lmao. That was baaaaad, including some of his output when he pretended it was over).

He comes across, to me, astute, well-read and forthright. The opposite of your description. He just is also wrong a lot lol.

Reply to AmadeusD Ok. I think your view is the more popular, the other competing account is that he’s mostly an idiot. I find him difficult to watch because of his anxious style which you can even hear in his terribly strangulated voice. I feel for him. But, hey, I might be wrong. I’m just reporting how he appears to me. Whatever the case, he’s like a guru for a lot of disenfranchised boys.

Reply to Tom Storm I think you're conflating a few things about him here. HIs demeanor is not anxious at all. He's quick-tempered. Perhaps you're seeing that? He usually sits laid-back, laughs through responses and concentrates adequately when it's required.

That said, you're right. We're just looking at appearances and they don't really matter. More substantially:

Quoting Tom Storm

for a lot of disenfranchised boys.

This is (perhaps true, in some sense) not accurate. He is a role-model for males without male role-models. There isn't some pre-disposition toward 'boys'. Women also find him extremely powerful, in large numbers, and defend him rigorously.

Again, Currently, i'm toward pitying the outcome of his last decade, but overall he's been an obvious good force for the male populations receiving his work. The idea that committing to short-term suffering for long-term gain; particularly interpersonal gain (family, community etc..) is the antithesis of how his work is framed: Anti-reason incel encouragement.

Quoting AmadeusD

I think you're conflating a few things about him here. HIs demeanor is not anxious at all. He's quick-tempered. Perhaps you're seeing that? He usually sits laid-back, laughs through responses and concentrates adequately when it's required.

Sure, I might be wrong - I'm just describing what I see. I have worked in the area of mental health for 34 years, so I'm not flying blind. I just looked him up - seems like he had a significant addiction to benzodiazepines for anxiety. So there is that.

I have seen him interviewed many times but not for a couple of years or more. I have no useful view of his work.

Reply to Tom Storm I would recommend his interview with Helen Lewis, and another with Skavlan (in Scandanavia).

Both show him in a very different light and use his work as jumping points, rather than just political stuff. He explains his positions, is patient with interlocutors and takes the situation seriously. I genuinely think these two are worth watching, even if the Peterson side of it was as off-putting as Candace Owens. He says great stuff that's worth hearing

Reply to Bret Bernhoft

Nietzschien thought is NOT an affirmation of nihilism, as you seem to suggest in your OP, but, rather, an (alleged) antidote to nihilism. Nietzsche hates nihilism, and associates it with pretty much every major philosophical movement ever created--e.g., he thought Christians are closeted nihilists.

If I had to summarize Nietzsche's works, then it would be that Nietzsche anticipated the slow, inevitable poisoning of society with nihilism due to the "death" of God; and his works are a wrestling with and overcome of that poison.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra is what Nietzsche considered to be the new bible: Zarathustra is supposed to be analogous to Jesus insofar as he has the ("divine") prophetic message (a gift) to give us. It's no coincidence that the story is riddled with religious, especially biblical, references and allusions (e.g., it is not a coincidence that Zarathustra descends down to earth's surface to give his gift to mankind).

The point of the book is to outline the Ubermensch, which is the ideal man in Nietzsche's thought that has completely overcome nihilism. The Ubermensch is the sublimation of slave and master that affirms life to such an extreme that they would live their life as an eternal reoccurrance. The Ubermensch is completely self-reliant, and is a law-maker and law-obeyer.

Your observation that Nietzsche's work has similarities to stoicism is understandable, but it is worth noting that stoicism is not compatible with his view; for Nietzsche considered the Ubermensch to be driven completely by passions, and not reason. Honestly, though, I drew the same kind of links to stoicism that you did, because Nietzsche often references principles of self-reliance that can be found (at least a little bit) in stoicism.

Although I disagree with Nietzsche on many things, I think his chief contribution is his work on self-development and self-reliance.

Quoting AmadeusD

Both show him in a very different light and use his work as jumping points, rather than just political stuff.

I've seen them. The GQ interview is my favorite of his that I've seen. I've watched at least 30. I've also watched around 6-10 of his podcasts and seen some of his early lectures. His comments on Dostoevsky often dismay me as I dislike him as a writer, apart from the Gambler which is a rare terse and targeted accoutn of an issue (in this case addiction) which so undermined D himself.

Reply to Tom Storm We're on similar "pages' here hahaha. Likely, for reasons we agree on Nietzsche too :P

Reply to AmadeusD Could be. If people find Peterson helpful I don't have an issue with that. There's plenty of things that don't work for me that work for others. Here's the thing. I'm around Peterson's age, a little younger. But I wonder what I would think of him if I were a young man today, say aged 20. Many of my friends at that age were seduced by Nietzsche, copying his prose style and making similar sounding declarations as though they had thought them up. Would Peterson, if he had been available to me then, appealed? Would I have started spouting Peterson's? I have no idea.

Quoting Bob Ross

I think his chief contribution is his work on self-development and self-reliance.

I think the chief result of this, though, is the bad side of what people call Peterson's followers. A commitment to words, only. Nietzsche didn't do academic philosophy, so spiritual by-passing, as it's terms, comes with his package basically. I don't knwo a single person who hasn't grown out of Nietzsche once they get a job. Literally none. Though, half of them decided Zizek was the next guy, so it's probably that I went to High School with idiots.

Quoting AmadeusD

I don't knwo a single person who hasn't grown out of Nietzsche once they get a job. Literally none. Though, half of them decided Zizek was the next guy, so it's probably that I went to High School with idiots.

That's very amusing. Good quesion however - who covers the same space in philosophical thinking in more recent times? I suspect you hate the postmodernists, but I'd say this is where Nietzsche's type of project (perspectivism and antifoundationalism) landed. Rorty was big on him - Deleuze, Adorno, Derrida...

I do wonder what Nietzsche's impact will be going into the future. Will he be be like Plato or St. Augustine, a mainstay on introductory philosophy syllabi millennia later? Or will he be like Eriugena or Henry of Ghent, one of the "deep cuts" of an era, hardly lost to history, but also not a major name in the field?

Nietzsche seems like he might be the most read philosopher today. He was the first philosopher I read. It's a little ironic considering his elitism. I do sometimes think though that he is more a voice for a particular historical moment, a diagnostician first and foremost. Already, a lot of his more provocative statements have become the norm, some to the point where they themselves have become stale dogma. I don't know if that lessens to appeal though. It doesn't seem to have so far.

Quoting Tom Storm

That's very amusing. Good quesion however - who covers the same space in philosophical thinking in more recent times? I suspect you hate the postmodernists, but I'd say this is where Nietzsche's type of project (perspectivism and antifoundationalism) landed. Rorty was big on him - Deleuze, Adorno, Derrida...

Nietzsche could claim some 'success', it seems. His voice can be heard amid more 'common' walks of life, in activism, in music, etc.

Awareness, in general, is blossoming everywhere. And counter-awareness, anger and desire, the many streams that overthrow any indoctrinated prison, are more in evidence. But often they are casual, un-profound and perhaps in an infancy of sorts. Still, the occasional work out there shows great wisdom, great rejuvenation of the dead God.

Quoting Tom Storm

Peterson always strikes me as a man having a breakdown in slow motion

I agree!

You might enjoy this article - here's a taste...

Quoting A feminist philosopher makes the case against Jordan Peterson

His idea (in chapter six of his book) that what leads to mass shootings in general, and school shootings in particular, is a kind of ahistorical, existential angst, or a “crisis of being” — that’s the phrase he uses! — about the despair and misery and suffering of human beings.

Peterson thereby takes on a huge burden of explaining why white women, people of color, nonbinary folks, and so on, almost never act on our existential angst and despair in this way. Because, as you know, the vast majority of school shooters have been white men.

Reply to Banno Kate Manne? *sideeye*

Tsk tsk Banno.

Reply to AmadeusD Good Moral philosophy from Dow Nunder.

So strong women bother you?

Reply to Banno That's funny. I live near the site of an almost forgotten mass shooting back in the 1980's in Melbourne. I was there yesterday and talking to a friend on the phone. The guy shot 13 people, killing 8 and he finally jumped from the building, plunging to his death. 'You never hear of a disgruntled 22 year-old woman doing this kind of shit,' my friend observed dryly.

Reply to Banno Not at all.
Plenty of absolutely fantastic women in Philosophy. Manne just isn't one on my account :) poke poke ;)

Reply to Tom Storm Do you not like Mondays?

Quoting AmadeusD

Do you not like Mondays?

I hate Mondays. But I'm a cunt most days... :wink:

Twas a shitty joke (importantly linked within)

Quoting AmadeusD

Manne just isn't one on my account

Interesting. I find her analysis of the social and practice-based motivation in metaethics quite interesting. What is it that you find unsatisfactory?

Reply to AmadeusD I remember when the song came out. I forgot about that particular shooting.

Reply to AmadeusD

Sure, nietzsche didn't have a degree in philosophy; but he was still very much a philosopher, and one of the most influential, just like plato, aristotle, etc.

I am inclined to agree that most people out-grow his view in a holistic sense; but so did everyone out-grow kantianism. There are still, in both views, some positions (that each took) that seem very true and accurate.

Likewise, I do think Nietzschien thought is found deeply rooted in post-modern thinking, and is the culprit for most of (what I would consider) radical political views. The core of his views have become the norm now, and it is disheartening.

Reply to Count Timothy von Icarus

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

I do wonder what Nietzsche's impact will be going into the future. Will he be be like Plato or St. Augustine, a mainstay on introductory philosophy syllabi millennia later? Or will he be like Eriugena or Henry of Ghent, one of the "deep cuts" of an era, hardly lost to history, but also not a major name in the field?

If that becomes Nietzsche’s fate, then it will also be the fate of Heidegger, Derrida, Foucault , Deleuze and others whose work is closely tied to Nietzsche. It assumes that Nietzsche’s ideas didnt stand out amongst his contemporaries as either the culmination of an era (Heidegger said he was the last Metaphysician) or the beginning of a new era.

Reply to Joshs

It's possible; whole centuries get reduced to one or two names in the grand scheme of things.

I feel like Nietzsche is much more often described as the harbinger of an era than its culmination — the "opening shots," if you will.

But either way, this doesn't seem to safeguard one's place in history. I've seen lots of people refer to Eriugena's Periphyseon as a sort of Neoplatonic "summa," the culmination of Late Antiquity, etc. But he still has a fairly minor place in the canon of philosophy, a stand out in the "Dark Ages," an era normally passed over.

People sometimes talk about St. Bonaventure in a similar way. The last great mind in the more platonic tradition, his "The Mind's Journey Into God," a sort of condensation of centuries of effort, distilled into its culmination. But he is primarily read as a mystic and theologian today, his philosophical output overshadowed by the new Aristotleanism and St. Aquinas.

But, if influencing future movements is important, then Nietzsche seems more secure. I suppose it also depends how the 20th century is seen in the future. Is the struggle against nihilism the defining feature? Or is it the battle between Marxism, fascism, modern liberalism, and identity?

Quoting Banno

What is it that you find unsatisfactory?

Without delving into the history of my Internet reading, from what you've posted her entire passage about Huck Finn is risible.

Quoting Tom Storm

I remember when the song came out. I forgot about that particular shooting.

Fair enough :)

Quoting Bob Ross

but he was still very much a philosopher

Vehemently disagree, but I also have no idea how I would enunciate why. I don't think he did philosophy. I do not take Shakespeare to be a philosopher, either.

Quoting Bob Ross

I am inclined to agree that most people out-grow his view in a holistic sense; but so did everyone out-grow kantianism. There are still, in both views, some positions (that each took) that seem very true and accurate.

I agree, but I don't see them as at all analogous. Nietzsche would be analogous to something more like Sunday school, in my eyes. Interesting ways to teach children fairly obviously co-operative strategies.

Quoting Bob Ross

Likewise, I do think Nietzschien thought is found deeply rooted in post-modern thinking, and is the culprit for most of (what I would consider) radical political views. The core of his views have become the norm now, and it is disheartening.

Very much agree, ignoring the above responses.

Quoting Joshs

If that becomes Nietzsche’s fate, then it will also be the fate of Heidegger, Derrida, Foucault , Deleuze and others whose work is closely tied to Nietzsche

One can only hope, Joshs ;) I do believe Foucault, at least, has gone beyond his 'mold' and will survive the jettison of PoMo thinking in general (if and when it occurs).

Quoting Bob Ross

Your observation that Nietzsche's work has similarities to stoicism is understandable, but it is worth noting that stoicism is not compatible with his view; for Nietzsche considered the Ubermensch to be driven completely by passions, and not reason. Honestly, though, I drew the same kind of links to stoicism that you did, because Nietzsche often references principles of self-reliance that can be found (at least a little bit) in stoicism.

Thank you for your response to my original post. Your perspective is welcome and refreshing.

In terms of the compatibility of Nietzsche's work and stoicism, you make an interesting point. And an important one; which I hadn't considered to this point. That stoicism is founded in reason, whereas Nietzsche's Ubermensch is rooted in passions. That does seem to make them rather different worldviews.

I enjoy learning like this, by sharing what I know to be true or "real", and having those with deeper wisdom(s) then inform, enlighten and/or uplift me to new heights of understanding. Much appreciated.

Reply to AmadeusD

Vehemently disagree, but I also have no idea how I would enunciate why. I don't think he did philosophy. I do not take Shakespeare to be a philosopher, either.
…
Nietzsche would be analogous to something more like Sunday school, in my eyes. Interesting ways to teach children fairly obviously co-operative strategies.

What books have you read of Nietzsche?

Reply to Bret Bernhoft

:up:

Reply to Bob Ross "Will To Power", some of "Genealogy of Morals" and (Ijke, when i was 12) "Thus Spoke..."

Reply to AmadeusD

I would suggest reading (in this order):

1. The Gay Science.
2. Twilight of the Idols.
3. Beyond Good and Evil.

Then, let me know if you still feel the same about Nietzsche. I find it really odd that you don't consider him a very influential philosopher akin to Kant, Plato, etc. and that he is basically for preschoolers. His work is very complex, and has (at least some) merit (even if you don't agree with him).

Autobiographies are somewhat of a rarity in general. Thankfully for us all, Nietzsche was merciful enough and left us a very significant one, Ecce Homo. Ecce Homo is a gateway into Nietzsche's own insights on his books, and the Dionysian dithyrambs. The dithyrambs are Nietzsche's greatest invention and by far the least understood; a simple search of these forums indicates no one has ever brought this up:

Nietzsche, Ecce Homo, p. 26: The whole of my Zarathustra is a dithyramb in honour of solitude.

Directly following this Nietzsche indicates, in my opinion, what is the greatest significance of his work:

The loathing of mankind, of the rabble, was always my greatest danger.... Would you hearken to the words spoken by Zarathustra concerning deliverance from loathing?

The book Thus Spoke Zarathustra is a dithyramb concerning deliverance from one's own loathing. Hopefully, by the end of this post I will have detailed why this is the ultimate significance of his work...

The following two quotes are additional context Nietzsche provides from Ecce Homo:

p. 97:The whole of Zarathustra might perhaps be classified under the rubric music. At all events, the essential condition of its production was a second birth within me of the art of hearing.

p. 109:What language will such a spirit speak, when he speaks unto his soul? The language of the dithyramb. I am the inventor of the dithyramb.

So what exactly is a dithyramb? Well, first, we can ruminate upon what Nietzsche said about TSZ to begin with.... It is a book, and it is music, thus it follows that a dithyramb is music in literary form. To understand, more fully, what a dithyramb is we can consult Nietzsche's first book The Birth of Tragedy. In the second aphorism of The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche suggests an intense visceral reaction occurs: "in the Dionysian dithyramb man is incited to the highest exaltation of all his symbolic faculties; something never before experienced struggles for utterance—the annihilation of the veil of Mâyâ, Oneness as genius of the race, ay, of nature." To put it plainly, the dithyramb is literary music that incites one into a certain state of heightened intelligence and creativity.

So now that we know what a dithyramb is, I will point out how dithyrambs work. In aphorism 16 of The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche details how the art of music distinguishes itself from all other art, based off the influence of Schopenhauer, such that music is the direct copy of the will of the artist. Such that Thus Spoke Zarathustra is a copy of the will of Zarathustra, or as Jung might suggest, a copy of the will of the archetype of the "wise old man."

TLDR: Go learn something you're super passionate about, and then go back and read the right dithyrambs, and be incited into the state of heightened intelligence and creativity, what kind of thoughts will flood you then? This, in my opinion, is Nietzsche's ultimate secret of Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

The thing about good and evil, is that the plebs have no idea what or how they emanate.

The people who have experienced good or evil really know how this inescapable dichotomy exists.