Thus Spake Zarathustra - Nietzsche | INFJ Forum

Thus Spake Zarathustra - Nietzsche

NeverAmI

Satisclassifaction
Retired Staff
Sep 22, 2009
8,792
962
0
MBTI
INFP
Enneagram
5w4
Ok, here is the first part of the prologue. These first parts may not require as much reflection as later ones, but might as well start at the beginning!



ZARATHUSTRA'S PROLOGUE.




1.​

When Zarathustra was thirty years old, he left his home and the lake of his home, and went into the mountains. There he enjoyed his spirit and solitude, and for ten years did not weary of it. But at last his heart changed,—and rising one morning with the rosy dawn, he went before the sun, and spake thus unto it:

Thou great star! What would be thy happiness if thou hadst not those for whom thou shinest!

For ten years hast thou climbed hither unto my cave: thou wouldst have wearied of thy light and of the journey, had it not been for me, mine eagle, and my serpent.

But we awaited thee every morning, took from thee thine overflow and blessed thee for it.

Lo! I am weary of my wisdom, like the bee that hath gathered too much honey; I need hands outstretched to take it.

I would fain bestow and distribute, until the wise have once more become joyous in their folly, and the poor happy in their riches.

Therefore must I descend into the deep: as thou doest in the evening, when thou goest behind the sea, and givest light also to the nether-world, thou exuberant star!

Like thee must I GO DOWN, as men say, to whom I shall descend.

Bless me, then, thou tranquil eye, that canst behold even the greatest happiness without envy!

Bless the cup that is about to overflow, that the water may flow golden out of it, and carry everywhere the reflection of thy bliss!

Lo! This cup is again going to empty itself, and Zarathustra is again going to be a man.

Thus began Zarathustra's down-going.
 
Last edited:
Prologue part 2.

2.​

Zarathustra went down the mountain alone, no one meeting him. When he entered the forest, however, there suddenly stood before him an old man, who had left his holy cot to seek roots. And thus spake the old man to Zarathustra:

"No stranger to me is this wanderer: many years ago passed he by. Zarathustra he was called; but he hath altered.

Then thou carriedst thine ashes into the mountains: wilt thou now carry thy fire into the valleys? Fearest thou not the incendiary's doom?

Yea, I recognise Zarathustra. Pure is his eye, and no loathing lurketh about his mouth. Goeth he not along like a dancer?

Altered is Zarathustra; a child hath Zarathustra become; an awakened one is Zarathustra: what wilt thou do in the land of the sleepers?

As in the sea hast thou lived in solitude, and it hath borne thee up. Alas, wilt thou now go ashore? Alas, wilt thou again drag thy body thyself?"

Zarathustra answered: "I love mankind."

"Why," said the saint, "did I go into the forest and the desert? Was it not because I loved men far too well?

Now I love God: men, I do not love. Man is a thing too imperfect for me. Love to man would be fatal to me."

Zarathustra answered: "What spake I of love! I am bringing gifts unto men."

"Give them nothing," said the saint. "Take rather part of their load, and carry it along with them
 
I wish such flamboyant discourse would occur to me when I wanted to talk to the sun!
Nietzsche's prologue bores me, which doesn't bode well, but I suppose that it's written like the bible is part of the irony.
 
I wish such flamboyant discourse would occur to me when I wanted to talk to the sun!
Nietzsche's prologue bores me, which doesn't bode well, but I suppose that it's written like the bible is part of the irony.

It gets better. I am not going to analyze until after work hours. His prose in this work is indeed that of ironic challenge to biblical texts. I have found (so far) that it is best read as a playful jest that challenges all preconceived notions that were prevailant in the 1880's of the time he wrote this, but much of it still applies.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: anica
I wanted to mention that I researched the overall theme of the story a bit recently. For those of you not aware who Zarathustra was, he was a prophet from ~600 B.C. in Persia. There are many different spellings, some being Zoroaster, and Zaraθuštra.

zarathustra1.jpg


Zarathustra had set about the idea of two universals, good and evil. Eventually Persia adopted the religion which is now known as Zoroastrianism. Alexander the Great's conquests forced the religion out of Persia but it survived in India as Parsi. Interestingly enough, the lead singer from Queen was of the Parsi religion.

Anyway, Nietzsche pulls some references from this overall theme in his work. The story is a fictional portrayal of Zarathustra that kind of turns the old myth of him on its head.

The version on Project Gutenberg that I am posting from was the first translation, done by Thomas Common which is known to be a bit ambiguous at times. Nevertheless, it is the free version available so that is what I use.

If you are particularly interested in the work, it may be worth checking out the most recent translation, performed in 2005 by Graham Parkes. http://books.google.com/books?id=u-GNHFScLgUC&sitesec=buy&source=gbs_navlinks_s

Ok, so it starts out with Zarathustra emerging from isolation and creating a metaphorical similarity between himself and the sun.

There is definitely a pattern of so many religions in the past worshiping the Sun, or having seemingly evolved from others that had once worshiped the Sun. This is understandable as well. Zoroastrianism actually carried over the ritualistic worship of fire from their previous religions.

In his mention of the sun, he links himself symbologically, and seeks to derive a purpose, what is the meaning of the sun without purpose? And so in his comparison, he acknowledges his own personal wisdom.

To me, it seems as though Zarathustra then compares himself to a god, he redirects his idolation inward. He acknowledges his own personal good and evil in the form of an Eagle (The holiest symbol in Zoroastrianism) and the serpent.

And so he seeks to descend back down to the state of the every-day man in order to share his knowledge.

Part 2 coming in a bit. Please elaborate or correct me where needed.
 
Last edited:
Interesting so far, looks like reading Shakespear has indeed proved useful, it make this much easier to read.

I wonder if the last line, "God is dead!" is in one of the last line of "The Crucible" I wonder if there is a link.
 
I think the use of language is only ironic insofar that its content radically opposes religious content.

Personally I find the language beautiful and I think Nietzsche found it beautiful also. I find the language carries an aura of authority with it, and Nietzsche used this to his advantage in conveying his ideas.
 
It gets better. I am not going to analyze until after work hours. His prose in this work is indeed that of ironic challenge to biblical texts. I have found (so far) that it is best read as a playful jest that challenges all preconceived notions that were prevailant in the 1880's of the time he wrote this, but much of it still applies.
Sometimes this analysis is tiring. You evidently know quite a lot about the big philosophers or are at least very interested in it. I've just started to probe into Nietzsche and others like Wittgenstein and I get really into it, but then get quite perplexed and sometimes bored and just want a quick synopsis of what each man pondered. I lack the grit to persevere with any body of text I find boring, even if it's just at the start, and it's annoying how so many philosophers seem to quote other philosophers who I know nothing about so I have go and research them to understand better what the first one was talking about. I've got a peripheral interest in philosophy which is keen to learn, but I can't quite plunge myself into it.

Somewhat off topic and me me me, sorry :D
 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUcHSCAE-AE"]YouTube- Also Sprach Zarathustra - Deodato (2006 space odyssey)[/ame]
 
Hey Krumplenump

I see where you're coming from. I am a huge Nietzsche admirer, and I studied with a prof who was only a few philosophers removed from the man himself. Nietzsche's writing can be difficult. But I'm a firm believer that you can break anything down to a few points. So if you're interested and if this helps:

"Now I love God: men, I do not love. Man is a thing too imperfect for me. Love to man would be fatal to me."

This is the Holyman speaking. And in essence, a lot of Nietzsche's writing criticizes this very concept that religious folks have. Particularly Judeo-Christian theology. Where shame & guilt & imperfection are seen as something humanity is born with. And we're supposed to love God and spend our lives seeking forgiveness, mercy, redemption in the hopes of reward in the afterlife.

So Nietzsche's arguing that this type of thinking is a disease that must be cured by us loving ourselves and not any kind of God.

In sum, don't love a God that doesn't exist, don't see yourself as inherently shameful or imperfect. Love yourself, affirm yourself.
 
I always picture Elvis walking onto stage when I see "Thus Spake Zarathustra" , I grew up in a household of Elvis fanatics and while some associate it with the story or tune of 2001:A Space Odyssey (I know the poster is referring to the STORY of Zarathustra) - but everytime I see the word "ZARATHUSTRA" images of Elvis come in my mind. I heard the theme played a half million times at least growing up.
 
Hey Krumplenump

I see where you're coming from. I am a huge Nietzsche admirer, and I studied with a prof who was only a few philosophers removed from the man himself. Nietzsche's writing can be difficult. But I'm a firm believer that you can break anything down to a few points. So if you're interested and if this helps:

"Now I love God: men, I do not love. Man is a thing too imperfect for me. Love to man would be fatal to me."

This is the Holyman speaking. And in essence, a lot of Nietzsche's writing criticizes this very concept that religious folks have. Particularly Judeo-Christian theology. Where shame & guilt & imperfection are seen as something humanity is born with. And we're supposed to love God and spend our lives seeking forgiveness, mercy, redemption in the hopes of reward in the afterlife.

So Nietzsche's arguing that this type of thinking is a disease that must be cured by us loving ourselves and not any kind of God.

In sum, don't love a God that doesn't exist, don't see yourself as inherently shameful or imperfect. Love yourself, affirm yourself.
Hey there,

Thanks a lot for that. That's how I like it, succinct. I feel like I've learned more from your quick synopsis than I would from trawling through texts, and in a much shorter space of time too. Very economical!

I feel compelled to pry synopses of other philosophers' work from you too :p
 
Neitzsche I get. He spent most of his time attacking the sort of Judeo Christian morality that pervades the west, and argued that the golden rule, (Kant's Categorical Imperetive) was both illogical and detrimental to life.

Who I have a hard time understanding is Kierkegaard. Who has been called the theist version of Neitzsche.
 
Hey Krumplenump

Thanks. There are only a handful of philosophers I can help you with, none of which I know as well as Nietzsche, whose writing I fell in love with. So if you're ever curious about another one, mention them to me and maybe I can help in some way.

Most professors try to make it more complicated than it really is, in an attempt to keep their jobs. lol Luckily I had a prof who was all about getting to the heart of the matter.
 
NAI, could you post a few questions to help with the discussion of the readings? Interesting reading but not sure how to approach them. Quite a bit to consider.
 
In sum, don't love a God that doesn't exist, don't see yourself as inherently shameful or imperfect. Love yourself, affirm yourself.


Exactly, the actual Zarathustra held tightly to the duality of good and evil, that they exist and influence us from outside ourselves. Ahura Mazdā was the diety of good, and Angra Mainyu was the diety of evil.

Nietzsche takes the name of Zarathustra and sort of creates a parody and to paraphrase the theme:

Good and Evil are only what your internal needs, desires, and convolutions make you see. There is no universal good or evil. Many people are motivated by ideas and doctrines that don't actually exist or apply. In life, it is not wrong to have needs or to exert your will in order to survive. It is about truly understanding what you need as a person and catering to those needs, not using theology that creates massive conflict with ourselves internally thus making us do things we might not otherwise do.

Be accountable to yourself and no one else. Understand your nature first, before all else.

And Restraint, I will get some questions up. The jobs got posted for my work recently so I need to really get working on the resume and research in order to re-apply.
 
And Restraint, I will get some questions up. The jobs got posted for my work recently so I need to really get working on the resume and research in order to re-apply.

That's fine. No rush. Know the job market is not easy right now, so good luck.
 
Last edited:
NeverAmI, well said.

I would just like to add that I'm not sure there is anything cooler than a bear dancing to a ghettoblaster.
 
Interesting thread mate, Thus spake Zarathustra is the first book that had a strong impact on me as a teen -well, second actually- and I was planning to reread it lately. Looking forward to this.
 
I read it just last summer. I found that a Gnostic interpretation of his writings made it most meaningful for me, not only because I am a Gnostic, but because other interpretations seemed incoherent by comparison.