[[ books ]] Also sprach Zarathustra: Ein Buch für Alle und KeinenAuthor Friedrich Nietzsche – Gsagency.co

Great, almost practical application, that it's almost possible to apply it even in today's society. Nietzsche's courage, creativity, and passion in this work make him enchant. However, while reading; I had to repeat many chapters twice because of his kind of strange and blunt language!. Verily have I overshot myself in my vanity into thinking that I was ready to attempt this book. Humbled am I now.

I probably got less than onethird of what Nietzsche was fulminating on. Maybe in another two reading or so... maybe with a different translation... ?

Can anyone who has read this help me out? Is the second half of the book just plain abstruse or was it just me? Also sprach Zarathustra: Ein Buch für Alle und Keinen, Friedrich Nietzsche

The book consists of four parts. The first part appeared in 1883, the second and third in 1884, the fourth in 1885 as a private print.

In 1886 Nietzsche published the first three parts as “So Zarathustra spoke. A book for everyone and no one. In three parts.” In contrast to Nietzsche's early works, the Zarathustra is not a nonfiction book. In hymn prose, a personal narrator reports on the work of a fictional thinker who bears the name of the Persian founder of religion, Zarathustra.

تاریخ نخستین خوانش یکی از روزهای سال 1971 میلادی

عنوان: چنین گفت زرتشتکتابی برای همه کس و هیچکس؛ اثر فردریش نیچه؛ مترجم حمید نیرنوری؛ تهران، ابن سینا، چاپ دوم 1346؛ در 436ص؛ چاپ دیگر تهران، امیرکبیر، سیمرغ، چاپ سوم 1351؛ چاپ دیگر: تهران، اهورا، 1384؛ در 597ص؛ شابک 9647316097؛ چاپهای بعدی اهورا، 1385؛ 1386؛ 1388؛ 1392؛ موضوع فلسفه فیلسوفان آلمانیسده 19م

عنوان: چنین گفت زرتشتکتابی برای همه کس و هیچکس؛ اثر فردریش نیچه؛ مترجم داریوش آشوری؛ اسماعیل خویی؛ تهران، نیل، 1349؛ در یک جلد؛ چاپ دیگر 1352 در 488ص؛ چاپ دیگر تهران، نگاه، 1370، در 542ص؛ چاپ هشتم 1372؛ چاپ سی و پنجم 1393؛

عنوان: چنین گفت زرتشت؛ مترجم: مسعود انصاری؛ تهران، زرین، 1379؛ در 607ص؛ شابک 9789644074004؛ چاپ دیگر؛ تهران، جامی، 1377؛ در 384ص، چاپ دوم 1379؛ چاپ سوم 1380؛ چاپ پنجم 1382؛ چاپ هفتم 1385؛ چاپ هشتم و نهم 1386؛ در 378ص؛ شابک 9645620600؛ چاپ دهم 1388؛ دوازدهم 1391؛ سیزدهم 1393؛

مترجمهای دیگر: مهرداد شاهین؛

نقل از متن: ای انسان! هشدار! نیم شب ژرف چه میگوید؟
خفته بودم، خفته بودم، از خواب ژرف برخاسته ام
جهان ژرف است، ژرفتر از آن که روز گمان کرده است. رنج آن ژرف است، لذت، ژرفتر از محنت؛ رنج میگوید گم شو! اما هر لذتی جاودانگی میخواهد، جاودانگی ژرف ژرف را! ترجیع بند زرتشت. پایان نقل

ا. شربیانی How you liking them apples, Jedefuckingdiah?!

Thus spoke Barnaby Jones.

I read this book back around 2001 or 2002. I wasn't much concerned with writing reviews back then—and how weird is that?—but, deeming Nietzsche a pretty smart guy, I scribbled down a bunch of notes and quotes. Since I've not a single review by Friedrich N. at this place, I thought, in lieu of anything more insightful or intelligent, to copy those notes out below, verbatim. And after having done so, I'm not quite sure what I had hoped to accomplish with such a meager collection of peanut shells. [Shrug]. But what are you going to do? Perhaps someone, somewhere, somehow, will find something in 'em that makes Zarathustra more appealing than it might otherwise have been, and that would be just bully for me.

*Notes written on shitbrown paper and awfully damn hard to transcribe, 'cause I'm a southpaw and I write like I was being severely and cruelly electrocuted whilst running about and shaking.

The Overman: That which man must become in order to overcome himself and/or nature.

The Creator is also an annihilator—he must be cruel to break old values and create new ones.

The Last Man is promised happiness—but who will lead and who will obey? Everyone is the same, and those who are different are mad. The Last Man invented happiness.

Man created God in order to look away from everything. God suffers too, and is thus imperfect like his creators. Man hated the body, and so created spirit. Man hated the Earth, and so created Heaven. Doubt was sin. Knowledge shunned. The Ego will reclaim man for the Earth.

You say to me "Life is hard to bear." But why would you have pride in the morning and your resignation in the evening? Life is hard to bear; but do not act so tenderly! We are all of us fair beasts of burden, male and female asses. What do we have in common with the rosebud, which trembles because a drop of dew lies on it?

True, we love life, not because we are used to living but because we are used to loving. There is always some madness in love. But there is also always some reason in madness.
Warriors of the Mind: Those with the courage to fight for their beliefs have helped mankind far more than priests who meekly accept the ideas of others.
You invite a witness when you want to speak well of yourselves; and when you have seduced him to think well of you, then you think well of yourselves.

Thus speaks the fool: "Association with other people corrupts one's character—especially if one has none."

One man goes to his neighbor because he seeks himself; another because he would lose himself. Your bad love of yourselves turns your solitude into a prison. It is those farther away who must pay for your love of your neighbor; and even if five of you are together, there is always a sixth who must die.
Using other people as a prop to make them feel virtuous. Groups of virtuous people feeling very good can do great evil to strangers whom they should love too.

Those who truly love are creators—and thus annihilators and givers and esteemers.

Do not let virtues, good and evil, limit your fulfillment as a creator. Remain of the Earth and do not get lost in the heavens seeking away from yourself and the body.
Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws.
Nietzsche says God is dead but he constantly refers to angels and magic creatures: is he creating a new religion of the Overman? Of becoming?

Nietzsche's Zarathustra has doubts about the future—he is worried about learning for learning's sake; education imparting a love of collecting other people's creations.
At bottom, these simpletons want a single thing most of all: that nobody should hurt them. Thus they try to please and gratify everybody. This, however, is cowardice, even if it be called virtue...Virtue to them is that which makes modest and tame: with that they have turned the wolf into a dog and man himself into man's domestic animal.

"We have placed our chair in the middle," your smirking says to me; "and exactly as far from dying fighters as from amused sows." That, however, is mediocrity, though it be called moderation.
Nietzsche also frequently mentions his nausea, which chokes him like a snake. It's always the ejection of that which sustains life brought about by life's own unsettling essence and energies.

Small virtues: Do not be more concerned with morals than with being men. Perfect safety and happiness makes for small minds and petty pursuits.

The old gods laughed themselves to death when the Grimbeard God proclaimed one god only. Laughter and prankishness are very important to Nietzsche—it keeps him from acting out of revenge.

The creator is not bound by the limits imposed by others. Their evil is so small: from small men with small virtues.

The great enemy of man is the Spirit of Gravity, which from birth holds men down with Good and Evil and Virtues. Man must soar his own way, making his own values. There is no correct one way or path for all men: that this is so is one of Gravity's lies.

The Spirit of Gravity is the old devil, and Zarathustra's enemy, for he brings constraint–statute–necessity–consequence, purpose and will, good and evil.

Good men never speak the truth. They give in—those who heed commands do not heed themselves.

The warring of despots and of democracy. The despot will distort the past to make it lead to him. The rabble with drown the past in shallow waters: forget the past after a pair of generations.

The Good and the Just must be pharisees. The good are always the beginning of the end. They want to crucify all creators; to the breakers of tablets, the Good sacrifice the future for themselves.

Zarathustra continues to be assailed by episodes of choking on the snake of nausea. All men, even the creator, must fight their nausea of the world.
For man is the cruelest animal. At tragedies, bullfights and crucifixions he has so far felt best on earth; and when he invented hell for himself, behold, that was his heaven on earth. Man is the cruelest animal against himself; and whenever he calls himself 'sinner' and 'crossbearer' and 'penitent', do not fail to hear the voluptuous delight that is in all such lamentation and accusation.
Zarathustra, through love of nature, has accepted his love of eternity and the eternal reoccurrence. Now in Part IV, as he has overcome his nausea of the eternal reoccurrence, he faces his final trial: pity.

All great lovers are great despisers. All creators are hard, all great love is over and beyond pity. All great success has gone to the wellpersecuted. All those who persecute well learn readily how to follow.

The small men ask only: How is man to be preserved best, longest and most agreeably? They are concerned solely with small virtues. The Overman wants not to preserve man, but to overcome man.

Nietzsche constantly stresses the need for laughter and to laugh at one self: to dance on light feet. The archenemy is always the Spirit of Gravity.

The greater the creator, the greater the evil. But wash off the stain after you have created. Birth is never pleasant.
Whosoever would kill most thoroughly, laughs—not by wrath does one kill, but by laughter.
I have at all times written my writings with my whole heart and soul: I do not know what purely intellectual problems are.
There is a great deal of Nietzsche that I agree with, and hoards with which I vehemently do not. I've been accumulating quotes of his for five years now, quotes whose inherent lack of context made me like him more than I do now. I still love many of his phrases as much as I did before, but if we ever met, we would not like each other at all.

Despite that muddle, I am grateful that I came across his words while I was younger and in the full throes of depression, cynicism, and a frighteningly homicidal brand of solipsism. I didn't know the definition of that last word back then, but I was in desperate need of something both horribly dismal and blindingly bright, a joy that did not require avoidance of despair but looked it full in the face. The often contextualized and paraphrased Nietzsche with atheism, nihilism, and yet fierce and glorious fervor for the future seemed perfect back then.

To some extent, he's still perfect, but only in bits and pieces. The call for solitude and individualism is as refreshing as ever, the atheism is still in line with my sensibilities, and the breathtaking vaults and shuddering descents carried my heart along with them. However. While I did indeed run across his cry for the Superman, even going so far as to take to heart his 'Man is something that shall be over come,' I paid as much mind to his Superman as concerned my younger self's view of the world and the people in it as utterly worthless. Not until this reading did I fully realize Nietzsche's meaning; being as interested in social justice and, well, female as I am, there was little chance of me passing up all that elitism (and classism?) and condemnation of empathy and rapier dashes of virulent misogyny.

It's strange, though. Perhaps it is a sign of just how much time I spent mooning after Nietzsche, back when I took him in small doses, but I am especially conscious of the time period in which he wrote this. His decrying of the "mob" echoes my own views regarding oppressive ideologies, and I have to wonder how much of his rampant condemnation of popular mentality fell upon the people rather than the ideas they lived by. As for his abysmal portrayal of women, who knows what a healthy dose of feminism and exposure to such awesome thinkers as Simone de Beauvoir, Hannah Arendt, and so many others would have accomplished. Probably gotten rid of his 'creator's pregnancy' conceit (if you're going to slander, Nietzsche, back off from the ridiculously disproportionate appropriation please), if nothing else. Also, there is the matter of his one serious attempt at heterosexual love having been rejected right around the time of composition of this piece. It doesn't excuse him at all, but it does explain his vitriol some.

All of that above is wishful thinking, of course, but seeing as this is the enigmatic rhapsodizer on the subject of wishful thinking, it's more than merited. For all of Nietzsche's aggravating inegalitarianism, he captured the rapid fire oscillation between top of the world and descent into hell so perfectly, so utterly, and then crafted with it a raison d'être both deathly serious and blissfully rapturous. There's no small amount of nihilism in his dismissal of everything solid, everyone stationary, everything decrepit and outdated and finally after long last proved false, but there's a spitfire life to it that laughs at selfserving pandering and loves chaotic progress that I myself cannot forbear from adoring and making my own.
'Thisis now my way: where is yours?' Thus I answered those who asked me 'the way'. For the waydoes not exist!
I shall keep this in mind, Nietzsche, if nothing else. Not all of what your Zarathustra spoke rings true to me, but you are one of the few who favored freedom over advice. For that, I am in your debt.
I am of today and of the hasbeen (he said then); but there is something in me that is of tomorrow and of the dayaftertomorrow and of the shallbe.

P.S. This particular edition was great. I have no clue about the quality of the translation, but the introduction and endnotes, endnotes that included all those untranslateable bits with as much explanation as possible, were indispensable. This is so many things at once: it is wise and intelligent; it is funny and perceptive; it is creative and playful, but it is also nonsensical and impenetrable.

Simply put, I am not quite sure if I am ready for this book. I consider myself relatively wellread, but I do not feel wellread enough to take this one on. There are parts that I do not understand or cannot interpret. I became lost in much of the writing as the allusions went over my head and meant extraordinarily little to me.

This is how I felt the first time I read Ulysses. I read it many years later and managed to trudge through it. The Satanic Verses also had a similar effect on me. All three books left me a little bewildered. And I don't think it is right to criticise such books on this basis.

So, I am putting this one on hold for several years. I will read it again when I am a little older and more educated. For now, though, it was simply okay but too profound for me at this point in my life.

We will speak again Zarathustra, in time.

You can connect with me on social media via My Linktree.
The best way that I can describe this book is as a religious experience, which is kind of paradoxical because the main idea of the book is that “God is dead.” When Zarathustra, the ancient Persian prophet, emerges from his 10year solitude and exclaims that God has died, he doesn’t mean that literally. Rather, he means that the concept of God as a gateway to finding meaning in life is dead and that the meaning of life should be found not in religious worship but within the self as an exemplar of true humanity–the ‘Superman’.

The Superman represents the highest state of man in which he creates his own values and is therefore a powerful master of himself. According to Zarathustra, this version of man has yet to exist, but he speaks of how it can be bred in future generations. The book follows Zarathustra not only as he preaches to his disciples ways in which to reach the Superman state, but also his journey in reaching it himself.

The most interesting part of this was Zarathustra’s discourse of the phases of spiritual metamorphosis represented by the camel, the lion, and the child. The first stage, the camel, represents the carrying of burdens of human existence that are necessary for a person to accept in order to strengthen them for the next phase—it is the weight bearing spirit that pushes itself beyond every limit possible. Upon bearing the weight of existence and in essence outcasting themselves in the desert, the camel realizes that it wants freedom from the traditional virtues it has known; this is where the lion phase comes into play. At this point, the camel has two choices. It can either take the path of nihilism, or the path of creating its own values and meaning in life now that is has rejected traditional values of religion. In order to reach the Superman state, the individual must reject nihilism and in doing so, the lion is realized. In the last phase, the child, the spirt is truly free. This occurs when the lion has elected to start a new life as the master of himself—thus the Superman is attained. I thought that whole analogy was so interesting, and it serves as the basis of the entire story.

Although very dense, the allegorical nature is what really drew me in. I liked that this was something extremely different from anything else I have ever read and it allowed me to see certain ideas in a new light, regardless of whether or not I agreed with them all. I would definitely give other Nietzsche works a read, but I'm sure until then I will be pondering about this one for a very long time. Incredibly interesting ideas. For sure you will be thinking about what is said here for a long, long time.

This most famous book of Nietzsche delves into the central idea: the "eternal recurrence of the same", also the parable on the "death of God", and the "prophecy" of the Übermensch. Nietzsche himself claims it is "the deepest book ever written". (he wasn’t one prone to humility…)

A fictionalized prophet descends from his recluse to mankind, Zarathustra, and turns traditional morality on its head. Zarathustra was the first moralist (and now fictionally the first antimoralist). This is intended as an irony, Nietzsche mimics the style of the Bible and indeed has ideas which fundamentally oppose Christian and Jewish morality and tradition. Many criticisms of Christianity can be found in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, in particular Christian values of good and evil and its belief in an afterlife. Nietzsche sees the complacency of Christian values as fetters to the achievement of overman as well as on the human spirit. To Nietzsche truthfulness is the highest virtue; the selfovecoming of the highest morality, the opposite of the cowardice of the "idealist” who flees from reality.

According to Nietzsche, the will to power is the fundamental component of human nature. Everything we do is an expression of the will to power. The will to power is a psychological analysis of all human action and is accentuated by selfovercoming and selfenhancement (please note emphasis on self). Contrasted with living for procreation, pleasure, or happiness, the will to power is the summary of all man's struggle against his surrounding environment as well as his reason for living in it. Faced with the knowledge that he would repeat every action that he has taken (the eternal recurrence), a normal man would be moved to depression. An overman however would be elated as he has no regrets and loves life.

To many it sounds like evolutionary theory. And like Darwinism his philosophy was interpreted by many into a form of Social Darwinism and extermination of races. It is still up for debate whether he really was a Social Darwinist.

Although the word ‘Uberman’(overman, superman) has been thought to have connotations of racial superiority, especially by the Nazis, there is no evidence in Thus Spake Zarathustra that Nietzsche intended it to mean anything other than a generic "higher being". (however, you may find sentences about ‘inferior and superior races’ in his previous work The Gay Science… whether he meant race literally is unclear, and problematic translations may further complicate the interpretations.)
A vulnerability of Nietzsche's style is that his nuances and shades of meaning are very easily lost — and all too easily gained — in translation. There is an ambiguity and paradoxical nature, which has helped its eventual enthusiastic reception by the reading public, but has frustrated academic attempts at analysis (as Nietzsche may have intended). Thus Spake Zarathrustra was however clearly intended to be taken as an alternative to repressive moral codes and an aversion to "nihilism" in all of its varied forms. Two things that can and should also be taken positively.

There are certainly moral issues to take up against the man though (as he intended). Most controversially and to the point that matters most for many, would he have condoned the mass extermination of Jews taken upon by Nazis? I don’t think so, but only because he was too intelligent, and there is no evidence there is such a thing as a literally ‘inferior race’. He would however condone lethal actions in ‘the will to power’ (he quite explicitly states so in the Gay Science) and he did not have a positive view of participatory democracy (because he wouldn’t agree socalled lesserdeveloped men, the ones he would probably define as lacking the ‘gay knowledge’, should be given equal power).

Not passe at all, his ideas are alive and well today, but his immoral approach should be considered extremely problematic. If an important challenge to repressive moral codes it should also be firmly acknowledged as too absolutist and allencompassing of a challenge to all morals.

For those who doubt Nietzsche’s influence, and are still unclear what he represents, he is fundamental to a wide variety of ideas. Some are highly questionable as helpful against nihilism (such as anarcoindividualism/anarchocapitalism and postmodernism). And some you may or may not find helpful (such as atheism). If still in doubt, here is a short list of those he has profoundly influenced:

Adorno, Bataille, Baudrillard, Benjamin, Bloom, Allan, Buber, Butler, Camus, Deleuze, Derrida, Dreyfus, Foucault, Freud, Heidegger, Iqbal, Jaspers, Jung, Kafka, Kaufmann, Kojeve, Lovecraft, Marcuse, Mencken, Molyneux, Onfray, Robakidze, Rogers, Santayana, Sartre, Strauss, Spengler, Williams, Wittgenstein, Zapffe
Horror movies never frightened me in the same way certain works of literature and film did. Reading through Zarathustra as a teenager was a singularly powerful experience; the work defies categorization or genre, time or place. I was warned that Nietzsche was dangerous for young readers (like Machiavelli) because he went insane. This I HAD to read. It was my first encounter with existential thought, a stinging critique of the very nature of values and belief. The events in the book are more like Biblical parables than a plot unfolding, except that the lesson is not, "Thou Shalt" but "Why should I?" I wish I could read German well enough to understand the nuances of Nietzsche's original narrative. Full of surreal visions, Zarathustra is a challenge to interpret but at the same time, lacks the semantics of conventional philosophy that makes the field inaccessible for many young students. So many things are explored, celebrated or indicted with ambitious and sharp leaps of metaphors: Moral relativism, comparative theology and eternal recurrence, nothing short of the love of life, the will to life. Many fascinating discussions have explored what could have influenced Nietzsche: the social milieu of late 19th century Europe, the contradictions of Enlightenment thought, etc. Thus Spoke Zarathustra will forever retain its mystery and is a monument to Nietzsche's eccentricity. Thus Spoke Zarathustra Is A Foundational Work Of Western Literature And Is Widely Considered To Be Friedrich Nietzsche’s Masterpiece It Includes The German Philosopher’s Famous Discussion Of The Phrase ‘God Is Dead’ As Well As His Concept Of The Superman Nietzsche Delineates His Will To Power Theory And Devotes Pages To Critiquing Christian Thinking, In Particular Christianity’s Definition Of Good And Evil