# Reading > Philosophical Literature >  Thus Spake Zarathustra Discussion Thread

## Dori

_Thus Spake Zarathustra_
~A BOOK FOR ALL AND NONE~
(German: _Also sprach Zarathustra:
Ein Buch für Alle und Keinen_)


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

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

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


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

Oh, and one more thing. This topic is not presuppose that the participants have already read this book. This topic is designed for members to discuss as they read. Unless anyone has any objections.  :Wink:

----------


## Pseudōnumos

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

----------


## islandclimber

So just before we start in on the prologue I thought it would be handy to have a bit of background on why Nietzsche chose the Persian Zarathustra (or Zoroaster) as the protagonist for his work...

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




> ]"People have never asked me, as they should have done, what the name
> Zarathustra precisely means in my mouth, in the mouth of the first
> Immoralist; for what distinguishes that philosopher from all others in the
> past is the very fact that he was exactly the reverse of an immoralist.
> Zarathustra was the first to see in the struggle between good and evil the
> essential wheel in the working of things. The translation of morality into
> the metaphysical, as force, cause, end in itself, was HIS work. But the
> very question suggests its own answer. Zarathustra CREATED the most
> portentous error, MORALITY, consequently he should also be the first to
> ...


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

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

well, and now on to the book.. post away!! :Biggrin:

----------


## Dori

> I guess the only place to really start is with Zarathustra's Prologue, and with that comes the kicker! Setting the stage for the Overman with the death of God. I worry how much of this would already be covered in the 'All about Nietzsche' thread. I haven't made my way through it yet.


I just took a gander at that thread last night (or very early this morning, rather). Even if some of this is covered in that topic, we could always discuss it again.  :Smile:  I just finished Zarathustra's Prologue, by the way.

Thanks for supplying the quote, *islandclimber*. I found it enlightening.

----------


## Quark

> I just finished Zarathustra's Prologue, by the way.


Dori, do you want to finish the book before you start the discussion, or can people discuss while you read?

----------


## Dori

> Dori, do you want to finish the book before you start the discussion, or can people discuss while you read?


I intend this discussion to proceed as the discussions do in the Forum Book Club. *islandclimber* suggested to me via PM that we discuss each section briefly and then the part as a whole. In other words, as we read, let's say, the first part, we can discuss the sections within briefly and once finished we can discuss the first part as a whole. 

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

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

What do you think of Zarathustra's claim that "God is dead!"?

----------


## Quark

> I intend this discussion to proceed as the discussions do in the Forum Book Club. *islandclimber* suggested to me via PM that we discuss each section briefly and then the part as a whole. In other words, as we read, let's say, the first part, we can discuss the sections within briefly and once finished we can discuss the first part as a whole.


Oh, so the discussion's already started. I didn't know whether your first post was meant as an introduction or just seeing if there was interest. Have you gotten much interest so far? These threads can be slow at first, but if you stick with it people will slowly start to join in. 




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


The prologue is every before the speeches, right?




> What do you think of Zarathustra's claim that "God is dead!"?


Well he meant that only the God of the saint is dead. Immediately after the famous "God is dead" statement Zarathustra goes on to describe his own God, the Superman (Ubermensch). The Superman takes the place in Zarathustra's mind that the Judeo-Christian deity took in the saint's.

----------


## Dori

> Oh, so the discussion's already started. I didn't know whether your first post was meant as an introduction or just seeing if there was interest. Have you gotten much interest so far? These threads can be slow at first, but if you stick with it people will slowly start to join in.


Not much, but enough interest to get a discussion going, I think. *islandclimber* was the one who initially came up with the idea in the thread "Let's discuss a book...". *Pseudōnumos* seconded the recommendation, then *KK2202* agreed (he hasn't replied to my PM though), and finally I agreed as well. I PMed *Zeruiah* to see if he was interested (he was looking for philosophy books to read). I'll probably PM a few more people to see if I can gather some more interest.  :Smile:  




> The prologue is every before the speeches, right?


I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Zarathustra's Prologue is the section before Zarathustra's Speeches. Does that answer your question?

----------


## islandclimber

> Well he meant that only the God of the saint is dead. Immediately after the famous "God is dead" statement Zarathustra goes on to describe his own God, the Superman (Ubermensch). The Superman takes the place in Zarathustra's mind that the Judeo-Christian deity took in the saint's.


good way of putting it *Quark*... glad to see you here...

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

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

----------


## Quark

> I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Zarathustra's Prologue is the section before Zarathustra's Speeches. Does that answer your question?


Ha, I half-spelled the word "everything." I got to the y and skipped onto the next word.


islandclimber, that's a good overview. I'll come back tomorrow and comment some more, but right now I'm exhausted from the monster post I had to write for the Chekhov thread.

----------


## Quark

Actually, before we get to the Superman concept I'd like to talk about the enigmatic phrase "go under." In german, it's _untergehen_ which also means "perishing" or "dying". What do you suppose Nietzsche means by this? It's mentioned on the very first page:




> "I want to give away and distribute, until the wise have once more become happy in their folly, and the poor happy in their riches.
> 
> "Therefore I must descend into the depths: as you do in the evening, when you go behind the sea and bring light also to the underworld, you exuberant star!
> 
> "Like you I go under--as men say, to whom I shall descend.
> 
> "Bless me then, you tranquil eye, that can behold even an all-too-great happiness without envy!
> 
> "Bless the cup that want to overflow, that the waters may flow golden from him and carry everywhere the reflection of your joy!
> ...


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?

----------


## NickAdams

I'm in! :Banana:

----------


## islandclimber

> Actually, before we get to the Superman concept I'd like to talk about the enigmatic phrase "go under." In german, it's _untergehen_ which also means "perishing" or "dying". What do you suppose Nietzsche means by this? It's mentioned on the very first page:
> 
> *"I want to give away and distribute, until the wise have once more become happy in their folly, and the poor happy in their riches.
> 
> "Therefore I must descend into the depths: as you do in the evening, when you go behind the sea and bring light also to the underworld, you exuberant star!
> 
> "Like you I go under--as men say, to whom I shall descend.
> 
> "Bless me then, you tranquil eye, that can behold even an all-too-great happiness without envy!
> ...


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

----------


## KK2202

_I have started a thread to discuss F. Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra. It can be found here:

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

How should we divide the book for discussion?

~Dori_

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

----------


## blp

> with enough support this could perhaps eventually spawn an "official" philosophy book club here on Lit-Net (in the form of a subforum, maybe?). Well, one can always dream...


It's a dream worth dreaming.

----------


## blp

The project Gutenberg link doesn't seem to work.

And, strangely, neither does the one to the other _Thus Spake..._ thread.

----------


## blp

Sorry for all this double posting...

Where does the prologue end? Is it where the discourses start? i.e. is it ten sections long?

----------


## blp

From what I can gather, the prologue ends, without fanfare, towards the end of the 6th section before the discourses. 




> And here ended the first discourse of Zarathustra, which is also called
> "The Prologue": for at this point the shouting and mirth of the multitude
> interrupted him. "Give us this last man, O Zarathustra,"--they called
> out--"make us into these last men! Then will we make thee a present of the
> Superman!" And all the people exulted and smacked their lips.


My general impression of the prologue: Zarathustra meets a typical St. Francis type hermit on his way down the mountain who advises him, rightly to some extent, that the general public will reject his wisdom and even mistake him for a thief or charlatan. The saint says he's happy communing with nature, generally acting like a madman and Z expresses a certain approbation for this by saying he'd better leave him to it so he takes nothing away from what he's got. Going on, however, he admits he's amazed that the saint hasn't yet heard that God is dead. 

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.

----------


## blp

Note: the prologue, in its references to apes and man as a sort of transition (a dangerous tightrope) to the Superman, is rather Darwinian. Darwin's _Origin of the Species_ appeared in 1859 and _Zarathustra_ appeared 22 years later.

----------


## Dori

> The project Gutenberg link doesn't seem to work.
> 
> And, strangely, neither does the one to the other _Thus Spake..._ thread.


I just tried Project Gutenberg link twice and it worked both times. 




> Sorry for all this double posting...
> 
> Where does the prologue end? Is it where the discourses start? i.e. is it ten sections long?


Yes, it is ten sections long. 


I've been extremely busy over the last few days, so I will contribute some this weekend, hopefully.  :Smile:  I think LadyW will be joining us at some point too. 

It's good to see this discussion growing in popularity, albeit slowly.  :Smile:

----------


## Ludmila607

Nietzsche Philosophy it is so impacting and rebel and new that lights strong passions and oppossition.Many teen agers get stuck to it and it can be a little danger to become trapped onto ideological or ratial interpretations.
Keep an open mind to read Nietzche, be a good "dancer "and of course, dont try to Congelate his Thought...he would hate it!! :Crash:

----------


## Quark

> 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.


Going back to what we were talking about earlier, do you think that Zarathustra's belief in human progress amounts to a religion? 




> I've been extremely busy over the last few days, so I will contribute some this weekend, hopefully.


I was wondering where you went. Busy with track stuff? Didn't you say you were in track and field? Or was that islandclimber? I think he just rock climbs.

----------


## blp

> Going back to what we were talking about earlier, do you think that Zarathustra's belief in human progress amounts to a religion?


It may be too early to say. I certainly don't think N intends it as such. I think he's saying that any religion allows people too much security, however artificially and/or illusorily, to allow them to take the steps necessary to progress. He's saying it makes people smug. And he isn't just attacking religion as we know it, but all the little habits and prescriptions that instill this smugness. That's what I meant when I said that, after the death of God proper, there are still a whole host of other false gods to overcome, for instance, the 'little pleasures' N refers to so contemptuously.

----------


## Dori

> I was wondering where you went. Busy with track stuff? Didn't you say you were in track and field? Or was that islandclimber? I think he just rock climbs.


Yeah, I've had two track meets this week. On top of that, I have a lot of school work at the moment (but next week is vacation!  :Biggrin: ).

----------


## Dori

> I'm in!


Excellent.  :Thumbs Up:  




> It's a dream worth dreaming.


Indeed it is.  :Smile: 




> _I have started a thread to discuss F. Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra. It can be found here:
> 
> http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=33996
> 
> How should we divide the book for discussion?
> 
> ~Dori_
> 
> Glad to see that discussions have already started. I am very much new to this kind of discussions.So I have no idea what kind of discussion suits best. But my opinion is that, we discuss as we read along. And its good that we all come to a common consensus like how much shall be read in a particular duration. Like say, we shall try to cover the chapter 1 this week , kind of plans so that all are in sync. And no one feels left out either ahead of others or left behind. I wish I am clear.


You write clearly, don't worry. I think we will move on soon, but for now I wish to make a comment, and hope that those willing will reply.  :Smile: 




> Actually, before we get to the Superman concept I'd like to talk about the enigmatic phrase "go under." In german, it's _untergehen_ which also means "perishing" or "dying". What do you suppose Nietzsche means by this? It's mentioned on the very first page:
> 
> [...]
> 
> 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?


Zarathustra is comparing himself to the Sun. He says, "Therefore I must descend into the depths: as you do in the evening, when you go behind the sea and bring light also to the underworld, you exuberant star!" I think he is likening the Sun's bringing of the light to the underworld to his bringing of wisdom to the "fools below" as you put it. In this sense, the editors of my edition note, the word _untergehen_ suggests not only "perishing" but "regeneration" as well. I believe Nietzsche is alluding towards the perishing of the Judeo-Christian moralities to make way for the Ubermensch.

----------


## Quark

> Zarathustra is comparing himself to the Sun. He says, "Therefore I must descend into the depths: as you do in the evening, when you go behind the sea and bring light also to the underworld, you exuberant star!" I think he is likening the Sun's bringing of the light to the underworld to his bringing of wisdom to the "fools below" as you put it. In this sense, the editors of my edition note, the word _untergehen_ suggests not only "perishing" but "regeneration" as well. I believe Nietzsche is alluding towards the perishing of the Judeo-Christian moralities to make way for the Ubermensch.


Yeah, that's what I was saying before, but what I didn't get was the connection between the two uses of the phrase "go under." When he's descending from the mountain it's used to mean teaching. He says he's going to give off his wisdom like the sun emits light, but the other uses of the words "go under" mean something a little different. "Go under" begins to mean as you pointed out, "the perishing of the Judeo-Christian moralities to make way for the Ubermensch." What's the connection between the first use of the phrase and the second? What's the connection between those uses and the way it's used in ch. 4 of the prologue?

----------


## Zeruiah

I really want to actively partake in this group, but I probably won't since my life is a chaotic melting pot of priorities and responsibilities.  :Bawling:  I will, however, sit on the sidelines and read all of your posts while I reference to my copy of _Zarathustra_ that I have sitting on my bookshelf. Perhaps I might even jump in a few times and offer my insight.

If this group is still going in about a month, I'll be more active then. Though, for now, I have to wait until my AP tests are over.  :Frown:

----------


## Dori

> I really want to actively partake in this group, but I probably won't since my life is a chaotic melting pot of priorities and responsibilities.  I will, however, sit on the sidelines and read all of your posts while I reference to my copy of _Zarathustra_ that I have sitting on my bookshelf. Perhaps I might even jump in a few times and offer my insight.
> 
> If this group is still going in about a month, I'll be more active then. Though, for now, I have to wait until my AP tests are over.


I should hope that this group will still be active in a month.  :Smile:  The discussion, as you can tell, is proceeding slowly. I think I'm in the same boat as you are at the moment.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Kafka's Crow

I re-read _Zarathustra_ around six months ago. I love this book, its humor, its grandeur and Nietzsche's amazing ability to oscillate between the two is very amusing. From the not-very-sad but violent death of the acrobat in the beginning to the song in the end (the one with an active participation by the donkey) it is a one long whirlwind of megalomania and piss-taking of the highest order! This is the tight-rope he is walking, between sublimity of thought and grandeur of ideas and the bathos of our mundane existence, its trivialities and insignificant activities. Being a philosopher, THE philosopher, Nietzsche must make this journey and he does it laughing and jeering without breaking his neck in the process like others had done before him. Is the death scene in the beginning a metaphor for the death of man and the birth of the Super Man?

----------


## DapperDrake

Looks like I'm in time so count me in  :Biggrin:  

I'm not sure that i've read anything by Nietzsche before but I'm more than game, Thus Spake... is one of those books i've always meant to get around to reading.

It might take me a few days to get started though as I'm fairly busy. 

If this is a success by the way I would recommend "The problems of philosophy" by Bertrand Russell for another discussion. A good primer for anyone new to Philosophy and probably good for discussion.. anyway it has the virtue of being short  :Smile:  http://www.ditext.com/russell/russell.html

----------


## 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  :Smile:  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"  :Smile: 




> '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.
> ...


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  :Smile:  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. :Biggrin:

----------


## jgweed

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

----------

