A Commentary on, and Partial Analysis of, Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Part 4, with Especial Reference to Discourses 11 to 20

Nietzsche was a revolutionary author and philosopher who has had a tremendous impact on German culture up through the twentieth century and even today. Nietzsche's views were very unlike the popular and conventional beliefs and practices of his time and nearly all of his published works were, and still are, rather controversial, especially in On the Genealogy of Morals. His philosophies are more than just controversial and unconventional viewpoints, however; they are absolutely extreme and dangerous if taken out of context or misinterpreted. After Nietzsche's death it took very little for his sister to make some slight alterations to his works to go along with Nazi ideology.

According to Nietzsche, Zarathustra indicated that mankind has lost his sense of living, polluted, and even once blasphemed against God. Furthermore, he believed that the great thing one could experience is to be dishonored, for "when the hour in which even your happiness becomes deplorable to you, similarly, your reason and virtue,” (Zarathustra 3) referring to our morality.

Nietzsche starts this second essay by looking at and reviewing the importance of our ability to make and keep promises. To hold yourself and others to a promise means having the need of both a good memory, the ability to remember making said promise and a strong feeling of confidence what will happen next and a long term ability to know you will be able to fulfil said promise. In order for us to make the commitment and have the confidence to do so means that on some level, we must give a feeling and make ourselves into the ideal of becoming in a way predictable, to be able to achieve this we as humans need a set of guideline to follow, certain rules that make this predictability a possibility, the certainty that a set of actions will lead to a set of reactions both internally and externally.

German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, is one of the most read, least understood- yet influential thinker who brought forth new questions for many philosophers to follow. There are many accusations and rumors around Nietzsche. In “What Nietzsche Really Said” these accusations and rumors that surrounded Nietzsche are allayed and supported by his impact and influential views. “What Nietzsche really said depends on what one reads and how one interpret what ones reads” thus, the interpretation of these accusations and rumors are either helpful or harmful about Nietzsche. Three helpful rumors about Nietzsche is that he adored power, he was a (pre) postmodernist and argued fallaciously. Although he was apolitical, people believed that his “will

The question that Nietzsche answers is “Does being active lead to happiness?” Nietzsche addresses the question in On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life1. Nietzsche’s answer to the question is yes, being active does lead to happiness. I will argue in this paper that Nietzsche’s argument is faulty by judging what is required in order to be happy.

“The late war, awakening all the primitive racial fury of the Western nations, and therewith all their ancient enthusiasm for religious taboos and sanctions, naturally focused attention upon Nietzsche, as upon the most daring and provocative of recent amateur theologians. The Germans, with their characteristic tendency to explain their every act in terms as realistic and unpleasant as possible, appear to have mauled him in a belated and unexpected embrace, to the horror, I daresay, of the Kaiser, and perhaps to the even greater horror of Nietzsche’s own ghost. The folks of Anglo-Saxondom, with their equally characteristic tendency to explain all their enterprises romantically, simultaneously set him up as the Antichrist he no doubt secretly

This piece of work will try to find the answer to the question ‘In Nietzsche’s first essay in the Genealogy of Morals, does he give a clear idea of what good and bad truly are and what his opinion of those ideas is’. It will give a brief overview of his first essay, it will also go into greater detail of what he claims good and bad truly are, and finally look at what he is trying to prove with this argument. It will look at his background in order to see if and how that has influenced his work and opinions.

Nietzsche’s publication, Untimely Meditations, contains four essays, one of which is Schopenhauer as Educator. Nietzsche is, to an extent, a disciple of Schopenhauer, though Nietzsche never met him. On the first page in the first paragraph of this text, Nietzsche writes that all men have a “prosperity for laziness” and “they are all fearful.” Though in some instances individuals can be lazy and fearful, that is not always accurate. Would Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin have traveled 238,900 miles to the moon if they were lazy? Would human life have been able to perfect over hundreds of different languages if they were fearful of a malfunction? In my personal opinion, I feel that we as humans give our race a reputation of being indolent and

We were introduced to Friedrich Nietzsche who had written several essays titled “On the Genealogy of Morality”. The beautiful thing about philosophy is it allows us to constantly keep thinking and consider other people’s point of view. Prior to reading these essays, we had read about Plato, St. Augustine and later the Buddha. All of them believed in some type of after life, while Nietzsche did not. He was considered an atheist to some, but he believed in asceticism.

Thomas Mann’s use of narrative emphasizes the Nietzschean notion of self-definition. In the narration of Aschenbach’s obsession with Tadzio, we see a subjective interpretation of events reminiscent of the Nietzschean idea of the perspectival character of existence. In his attitude towards the sickness in the city, and later, in his disposition immediately prior to his death, we see the affirmation of his own perspective and destiny advocated in Nietzsche’s idea of the eternal recurrence.

1) In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche claims that esteeming is itself the most estimable treasure. Esteeming is essential to life; no one can live without esteeming. Esteeming would be then a group of presets from which moral is part of. For Nietzsche, one only have value when it creates something. Creating something is the equivalent of not passing through life without a reason, without leaving anything behind.

We have grown weary of man. Nietzsche wants something better, to believe in human ability once again. Nietzsche’s weariness is based almost entirely in the culmination of ressentiment, the dissolution of Nietzsche’s concept of morality and the prevailing priestly morality. Nietzsche wants to move beyond simple concepts of good and evil, abandon the assessment of individuals through ressentiment, and restore men to their former wonderful ability.

Although the problem of the relationship between Nietzsche and metaphysics might seem to be a settled issue, this is in fact a quite complicated and fascinating problematic. The difficulty with this subject lies in the often unacknowledged ambiguity that the term ‘metaphysics’ exhibits in Nietzsche's writing, as this word assumes different nuances and connotations in different contexts. Therefore, if we can get past the usual rhetoric on the topic, we come to realize that Nietzsche addresses the topic of metaphysics in at least two distinct ways.

The Dionysian speaks to the tumultuous and dull parts of the humankind. Zarathustra has encountered these components on the mountain, and they have driven him to understand that God is dead. The Apollonian components of the world speaks to request, reason, and culture. By being over the mountain, Zarathustra is encompassed by the Dionysian, but yet his physical nearness to the sun speaks to his capacity to chat with and comprehend the Apollonian. These two components are essential to understanding Nietzsche's philosophy in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Zarathustra's goal was to balance these elements and help other individuals balance as

5. Discuss Nietzsche’s theory of “will to power” and “the innocence of becoming”. Does the hypothesis of the will to power successfully “debunk” traditional religion, morality, and philosophical claims to provide the “disinterested” or “objective” truth?