Hey, I'm about halfway through Thus Spake Zarathustra, been reading it for a few days, but I'm finding that I'm having trouble understanding the metaphors in it. Either that, or they aren't terribly enlightening. Do most of you guys use supplements from the internet to understand some books on philosophy, or do you just meditate on it? Also, what do some of you people reccomend as basic philosophy books, in order to understand these philosophers terms, ect?
I know what you mean. "Zarathusra" I found easily absorbed, but I sometimes get extremely agitated with De Sade, to the point where I can only take him in bits. (Sorry Xev Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) I suppose a lot of it does depend on the style of the author you read, as to how much you absorb. If you like the style, you pay more attention to what's being said. I know some who cannot take Ayn Rand's style, and therefore probably miss out on some interesting passages. Try the net, there's heaps of discourses on Nietzsche if you google them.
Zarathustra I would advise against getting a book analyzing it. Personally, I think it's a book that's sometimes pretty open to interputation and you don't want someone else's view influencing you that much on Nietzsche. As for learning philosophical styles and such I'd suggest just picking up a year 1 University text book. It's not going to help you learn philosophy in depth at all, but it will get hte building blocks moving. If you're just starting really getting into reading philosophy, here are some books you might want to read - if you haven't already: The Republic - Plato Death of Socrates - Plato Poets - Aristotle (actually, this is an essay found within books) Discourse on Method - Rene Descartes An Inquiry into Human Understanding - David Hume Birth of Tragedy - Nietzsche I'd say those six are a nice way to smoothly get yourself into the philosophers of the past.
Good sellection! Somebody who have read all this books I think that will have get a acceptable level of philosophy.
Balder: I usually just meditate on it. Only exception is Freud and Foucault, whom I just need to have - distilled a little. As for the metaphors in Zarathrusra - they aren't supposed to be studied. They're supposed to be understood. Remember the sub-text on the title page, "A Book for All and None"? A good philosophical dictionary, that's all. I don't agree with trying to get "an acceptable level of philosophy". Maybe if you want to sound educated at cocktail parties, but otherwise I'd read whatever interests you. Here's an online philosophy dictionary: http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/
Could be, I dunno, that's a little advanced. I think what you want is a good overview of the major concepts of philosophy, and Bertrand Russell has a few good works with that aim in mind. He was my first introduction to it, and I think it was a good general starting point, then you can narrow your interests more. Might save some time and frustration I would think.
understanding nietzsche... Before you replace the whole kitchen, why don't you take a chance to stop and think. If you are not understanding Nietzsche's Zarathustra than reread the Prologue. I think that the metaphor of the tightrope walker is key to the whole book. Nietzsche is invisioning some one who will overcome man. Someone who will be better than man in the ways he precribes that he should. The man who thinks and acts on his way towards becoming the overman is like a tightrope walker who faces the danger of falling into an abyss. We are all like this tight rope walker in that we have to walk the line between what we think is best and what society deems appropriaete. But the man that wants to become the overman faces even more severe dangers in that he seeks to become wise, virtuous and seeks to share his wisdom with the populace, much like Zarathustra or say Jesus. In this way Nietszche thinking or hope are not so much different from the thinking of Socrates and Plato. Nietzshe knows that bringing knowledge to the world can bring harm to the one that would bring it but it should be brought because it is needed. He thinks that the world is under the spell of religion and everyone needs to wake up from their sleep. Perhaps Nietszche was also aware of the danger in thinking and acting. The political philospher Hannah Arendt has pointed out that even, "thinking is dangerous". Maybe Nietzsche was at least somewhat aware that his thinking would some day be used by the Nazis, especially his idea of the overman, which some may say is the crux of his philosophy. Either way, I think that Nietzsche is aware that there is an essential danger in thinking, acting and expressing yourself. Besides this the world is a place with many dangers itself. To set out on the bold course to become the overman one is going to have to take risks and face dangers, the path is rough and hard, thus the metaphor of having to climb the mountain. Everyones life is like a mountain. Some people have harder paths than others, the idea of the long road is in both Nietszche and Plato (In the Republic). Perhaps a good way to read Zarathustra is to put yourself in Zarathustras place, in many ways it is a guide to life and the good things and treacheries you will face along the way. Perhaps Nietzsche figures it is his readers which will attempt to become the overmen. Anyway, I hope I have helped you and I am not claiming that everything I wrote is verifiable, I am just trying to give you a start.
I disagree. Zarathrusra is in no way a "guide to life". Zarathrusra is a testament to the highest figure of Nietzsche's imagination. Zarathrusra is Nietzsche.
I cannot think of one 'philosopher' who ever recanted anything they ever wrote even if science or time proved otherwise. Either way, most were arrognat miscontents who woke up one day and decided their opinions were better than most and so put them down. Create your own philosophy. Just make sure u are an arrogant self-serving bastard.
"Either way, most were arrognat miscontents who woke up one day and decided their opinions were better than most and so put them down." Got an inch of proof for that? "Zarathrusra is Nietzsche." Zarathustra, I think, is what Nietzsche imagined himself to be. I think Nietzsche, like Karl Popper, felt slighted by the lack of greatness attributed to him. And, that is to say, even though he was still seen as a great philosopher, he wanted to be something of a prophet - of a next great one. He wanted to usher in the age of Zarathustra. Thus his complete attacks on Socrates (not unlike Popper's complete attacks on Plato). Also like Popper, Nietzsche was not particularily successful with the woman-folk (though Popper did marry). Though, of course, deep down Nietzsche would have felt greatly inferior as a person.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Arrogance is self-defeating, and an indication of low self-esteem (not "too much" self-esteem which is impossible btw). It is also a word that is often misused.
very interesting... bit I still think is an important point here is that Nietszche wanted people in the world to become overmen, to conquer their beastly nature. If you think about it he himself lived mostly a life of solitude and was not known to be much of an actor in the political sense. He for the most part shunned the public world and for the most part failed socially as one poster just mentioned. Whereas, Zarathustra took this tumultuous path to bump into and learn from everyone. In this sense perhaps you guys and girls are right, maybe Zarathustra is NIetzsche's ideal self but I do think Zarathustra is also what he wanted us to be. And that may relate to Zarathustra's androgny, being someone who has boht strong components of both the feminine and masculine. Perhaps Nietzsche's perfect person has overcome his/her beastly nature by being equally man and woman in one. Now there is a strange reading for you. Anyway, to get back to the point, I do agree that Zarathustra could have been Nietzsche but I still think that it can been seen to a certain extent as a guide on how to handle the world and maybe to perhaps be the world. If Nietzsche doesn't want to teach us, what is the purpose of him writing. Food for thought.
Tyler: I believe that Nietzsche's feelings of inferiourity are the very reason he created Zarathrusra. Zarathrusra is everything Nietzsche wanted to be. fredx: Actually, the overman simultaneously embraces and overcomes his bestial nature. Nietzsche certainly did not want people to conquer their bestial natures. "Unhappy do I call all those who have only one choice: either to become wild beasts, or tamers of wild beasts. Amongst such would I not build my tabernacle." You forget that Nietzsche realized just how far short of Zarathrusra we are. Nietzsche wanted there to BE a Zarathrusra, for the overman to live, but he also realized that the mass of humanity would never even come close to being overmen. Where do you see this? "Zarathrusra" is a plea. He's not trying to teach the all-too-many how to become Zarathrusra, or how to handle the slings and arrows of life - he's writing for the people who are higher than the ordinary man. And every man carries glimmers of the overman. Thus he writes to all. Even the greatest of us are not enough. And thus he writes to none. "I am Zarathustra the godless: where do I find mine equal? And all those are mine equals who give unto themselves their Will, and divest themselves of all submission."
crap, i had forgotten all about this thread: here is Nietzsche himself, on philosphers, from beyond good and evil: "Gradually it became clear to me that great philosophy so far has been: namely the persoal confession of its author and a kind of involuntary memoir; ....." One of his truthful statements. Philosophers-- or should i say in jest ala Nietzsche, 'great philosophers' are plentiful. Who we decide to call great is a matter of preference. Their realization of the 'truth' or 'untrue' is merely a perception all theirs. Whether is it is true or not to you depends entirely on you and where u stand, want to stand or were taken. Either way, until the death of mankind, the very same questions Epicurus and Plato pondered will be ponedered and 'never' answered. But this is also 'true' and 'untrue'. For they have been answered and not answered.
