--------------------
Once the soul looked contemptuously on the body, and then that contempt was the supreme thing:- the soul wished the body meagure, ghastly, and famished. Thus it thought to escape from the body and the earth.
Oh, that soul was itself meagre, ghastly, and famished; and cruelty was the delight of that soul!
But ye, also, my brethren, tell me: What doth your body say about your soul? Is your soul not poverty and pollution and wretched self-complacency?
Verily, a polluted stream is man. One must be a sea, to revive a polluted stream without becoming impure.
Lo, I teach you the Superman: He is that sea; in him can your great contempt be submerged.
--------------------
Nietzsche, 'Thus Spake Zarathustra', chapter III
Few thinkers have created as much controversy or left as big an imprint on the world as Friedrich Nietzsche. He is credited with the 'death of God', inspiring the Zionist state, as well as contributing to the intellectual climate allowing the far right Nazi party to flourish in Germany in the 1930s and 40s. He is the starting point for many of the existentialist and other continental philosophers of the 20th century.
I first read 'Thus Spake Zarathustra' when I was about 22, and was absolutely amazed at the prose, the ideas, and the audacity of the book. I'm not sure I really understood how powerful a book could be until I read this one - in some ways, it changed the way I looked at the world. Here is a book begging humanity to free itself from the shackles of religion, subservience and servitude, and grasp control of our own fate, thus becoming a 'superman' (as my English translation says), or 'ubermensch' (a word you no doubt relate to your school-age history class on the second world war). Now, some years after reading it the first time, and having read a few more of Nietzsche's works, I've become much more critical of some of his ideas, but still greatly respect and am inspired by a lot of what he said, especially within this particular book.
For those that haven't read it, a very very short, poorly explained summary: it is an attack on the Christian mindset and attitude to life, yet written in a biblical style. It offers a way for humans to rise above the idea of serving their superiors, especially the 'ultimate' superior, God himself. By mental strength and will, the abandonment of negative forces such as pity and humility, one can rise above servility to become the master of one's own life.
I guess he is most famous for the way his ideas were manipulated into the ethos of the Nazi party - obviously the idea of the 'ubermensch' is one of the first things you learn about in school. He was long dead by the 1930's and 40's, so it's impossible to say exactly what he'd feel about his ideas being used in this way. No doubt he'd be delighted by the abandonment of religion and the assertion of humankind's natural will, but I can't help but feel that he'd see that even in such a state, man was no more a master of himself than in any other state, still just a manipulated puppet of a government, and in this case a government driven by something akin to Nieztsche's beloved will to power.
As a personal reader, however, without taking everything he says in a 100% literal way, I think I've certainly gotten some things out of it that are positive to my own life. If one tries to be a master of oneself, one must take responsibility for all the decisions and choices one makes (am I making the right choice? what is leading me to make the choice?). One must be careful of being manipulated by outside sources (am I buying this brand of soap just because of an exploitative advertising campaign, or because it's a good soap?). Finally, in the end, one must actively strive to a better place in life (what do I need to do to achieve inner peace and happiness?).
I don't really have any conclusion, or point to this post - it's just a subject that really interests me. I guess one idea is that what might be a great individual personal philosophy for someone to become successful in life, doesn't mean it's something that is going to be good for humanity if it becomes widespread. I suspect it'll never be possible for all of humankind to be equal 'masters of destiny'. But on the other hand, I've always found it a bit difficult to attack a way of thinking due to its implications (or lack thereof). Many criticise one of my favourite authors Albert Camus - a man who at times gave in to the complete absurdity of our lives - for not providing a way of thinking that is a positive force in people's lives. But, there's not an obvious link between being 'a positive force' and being a well reasoned, sound idea - indeed, in Camus's case, he might very well argue that what others would see as a positive force has no real meaning, and therefore is a meaningless statement. A way of thinking that is useful for the peaceful procreation of humanity is not necessarily something that is well reasoned or logically sound, just something that works effectively. If you were a polar bear sitting on a melting icecap, maybe you wouldn't be seeing the peaceful procreation of humanity as such a positive thing in any case!
Once the soul looked contemptuously on the body, and then that contempt was the supreme thing:- the soul wished the body meagure, ghastly, and famished. Thus it thought to escape from the body and the earth.
Oh, that soul was itself meagre, ghastly, and famished; and cruelty was the delight of that soul!
But ye, also, my brethren, tell me: What doth your body say about your soul? Is your soul not poverty and pollution and wretched self-complacency?
Verily, a polluted stream is man. One must be a sea, to revive a polluted stream without becoming impure.
Lo, I teach you the Superman: He is that sea; in him can your great contempt be submerged.
--------------------
Nietzsche, 'Thus Spake Zarathustra', chapter III
Few thinkers have created as much controversy or left as big an imprint on the world as Friedrich Nietzsche. He is credited with the 'death of God', inspiring the Zionist state, as well as contributing to the intellectual climate allowing the far right Nazi party to flourish in Germany in the 1930s and 40s. He is the starting point for many of the existentialist and other continental philosophers of the 20th century.
I first read 'Thus Spake Zarathustra' when I was about 22, and was absolutely amazed at the prose, the ideas, and the audacity of the book. I'm not sure I really understood how powerful a book could be until I read this one - in some ways, it changed the way I looked at the world. Here is a book begging humanity to free itself from the shackles of religion, subservience and servitude, and grasp control of our own fate, thus becoming a 'superman' (as my English translation says), or 'ubermensch' (a word you no doubt relate to your school-age history class on the second world war). Now, some years after reading it the first time, and having read a few more of Nietzsche's works, I've become much more critical of some of his ideas, but still greatly respect and am inspired by a lot of what he said, especially within this particular book.
For those that haven't read it, a very very short, poorly explained summary: it is an attack on the Christian mindset and attitude to life, yet written in a biblical style. It offers a way for humans to rise above the idea of serving their superiors, especially the 'ultimate' superior, God himself. By mental strength and will, the abandonment of negative forces such as pity and humility, one can rise above servility to become the master of one's own life.
I guess he is most famous for the way his ideas were manipulated into the ethos of the Nazi party - obviously the idea of the 'ubermensch' is one of the first things you learn about in school. He was long dead by the 1930's and 40's, so it's impossible to say exactly what he'd feel about his ideas being used in this way. No doubt he'd be delighted by the abandonment of religion and the assertion of humankind's natural will, but I can't help but feel that he'd see that even in such a state, man was no more a master of himself than in any other state, still just a manipulated puppet of a government, and in this case a government driven by something akin to Nieztsche's beloved will to power.
As a personal reader, however, without taking everything he says in a 100% literal way, I think I've certainly gotten some things out of it that are positive to my own life. If one tries to be a master of oneself, one must take responsibility for all the decisions and choices one makes (am I making the right choice? what is leading me to make the choice?). One must be careful of being manipulated by outside sources (am I buying this brand of soap just because of an exploitative advertising campaign, or because it's a good soap?). Finally, in the end, one must actively strive to a better place in life (what do I need to do to achieve inner peace and happiness?).
I don't really have any conclusion, or point to this post - it's just a subject that really interests me. I guess one idea is that what might be a great individual personal philosophy for someone to become successful in life, doesn't mean it's something that is going to be good for humanity if it becomes widespread. I suspect it'll never be possible for all of humankind to be equal 'masters of destiny'. But on the other hand, I've always found it a bit difficult to attack a way of thinking due to its implications (or lack thereof). Many criticise one of my favourite authors Albert Camus - a man who at times gave in to the complete absurdity of our lives - for not providing a way of thinking that is a positive force in people's lives. But, there's not an obvious link between being 'a positive force' and being a well reasoned, sound idea - indeed, in Camus's case, he might very well argue that what others would see as a positive force has no real meaning, and therefore is a meaningless statement. A way of thinking that is useful for the peaceful procreation of humanity is not necessarily something that is well reasoned or logically sound, just something that works effectively. If you were a polar bear sitting on a melting icecap, maybe you wouldn't be seeing the peaceful procreation of humanity as such a positive thing in any case!
