Thus Spake Zarathustra

[rotting bones]

I read Thus Spake Zarathustra again. I liked it much better now than when I read it as a teenager. I even liked the symbolism. This book really is the Antichristian bible. I think, like Nietzsche, my misanthropy has made me completely uninterested in finding points of agreement with the opinions humans actually hold.

Also, I think Nietzsche, in a way, might have answered my question about how saying yes relates to the Will to Power where he says that the soul first becomes a camel, then a lion, then a child.

I definitely should re-read. I loved that book as a teenager.

Comments:

1. If you like Nietzsche, try Jonas Ceika's How to Philosophize with a Hammer and Sickle. It's about Nietzschean Marxism by the same guy who made the Heidegger video I keep posting.

2. I still don't agree with Thus Spake Zarathustra. I just enjoyed reading it. Nietzsche does say things like the pride of the slave should be to obey.

3. It's much better than any "motivational" literature or video I found recently. It's also better than the Quran. I prefer insults over threats.

4. I still don't find Nietzsche sounding as happy as he claims to be. His tone is too shrill. I feel like he's projecting half the time when he insults everyone else. I know part of this is historically accurate. He's obsessed with health and strength because he was an invalid. He's not a Dionysus-like prophet roaming from peak to peak with the eagle of pride and the serpent of wisdom or whatever.

5. This time, I had much greater tolerance for the overwrought tone and elements of world-building like "The Pied Cow". The first time, I thought these were ridiculous in a serious philosophical work.

6. I'm glad I found the quote about the so-called "great man" who had become a giant ear, on which the rest of him had become an excrescence. Now I just need to find the places in his other books where he recommends works of French literature for their classical simplicity (and insults German and English literature for their convolutedness).

7. I think the biggest weakness of the book is that it assumes people act out of motives. I'm not sure this is true in the general case. I suspect they act first, and then invent motives to soothe the questions brought up by the abyssal dimension of the act.

Questions:

1. Would the kings of the earth have time for Zarathustra these days? Won't they be on guard against him as a cult leader trying to take their money?

2. I found The Ugliest Man very funny this time around. Is he counted as one of the best men?

PS. Re: "he was an invalid" This is not to imply an invalid can have nothing to say about the human condition.

I wonder if it's possible to translate this book into Kwak'wala.

[Ares Land]

I read it as a teenager and it made a strong impression on me.

Now that I'm Zarathustra's age -- and Nietzsche's age before he took up horse-bothering - I should re-read it and compare my impressions.

The idea of the superhuman was impressive back then -- it's really not some sort of Nazi, testosterone-poisoned thing. Still, I don't think Nietzsche is terribly clear on what exactly he's on about. That impressed me a lot when I was 17; I had a lot more patience with deep-sounding cryptic references back then. I think it'd annoy me now.

I really liked the pseudo-biblical/mythological stylo too.

I do find it surprising too that Nietzsche, with all the focus on health and strength and will to power, was really pretty sick and miserable. Then again I guess chronic illness makes you figure out a few things. I still enjoy his quip that a lot of existential angst and unhappiness comes down to bad digestion.

On French literature: Nietzsche loved Stendhal. I can get why, given that Stendhal's heroes are very intense men, kind of Nietzschean in their own way. I don't know if Nietzsche realized that they're also more than a little ridiculous, and not the sharpest tools in the box.

As I recall, Zarathustra is very misogynistic. I'm inclined to think that's a huge flaw; Nietzsche basically ignored half (if not more) of human experience.

People who actually know German tell me it's the kind of work that really suffers in translation. There are a lot subtle nuances in languages that are hell to translate; plus apparently the whole book references Luther's translation of the Bible.

[hwhatting]

As I recall, Zarathustra is very misogynistic. I'm inclined to think that's a huge flaw; Nietzsche basically ignored half (if not more) of human experience.

Too put it very loosely, Nietzsche was an early example of an incel, drawing from the fact that the woman he desired didn't want him the conclusion that women are inferior, men-corrupting beings.

[Raphael]

I find it a bit surprising to see Nietzsche defended by someone who basically sees anyone who shares any minor opinion with Heidegger as a nazi.

[Ares Land]

As I recall, Zarathustra is very misogynistic. I'm inclined to think that's a huge flaw; Nietzsche basically ignored half (if not more) of human experience.

Too put it very loosely, Nietzsche was an early example of an incel, drawing from the fact that the woman he desired didn't want him the conclusion that women are inferior, men-corrupting beings.

I think so, but then again that sort of opinion was pretty common, even from married authors

I find it a bit surprising to see Nietzsche defended by someone who basically sees anyone who shares any minor opinion with Heidegger as a nazi.

Oh, Nietzsche would have hated Nazism; among things he denounced were the State, Germany, mass movements and antisemitism.
Nietzsche is often popular on the far left, really. Though I don't think he would have liked communism either. (Was there anything Nietzsche liked, though, besides hiking? I'm not sure!)

[rotting bones]

Oh, Nietzsche would have hated Nazism; among things he denounced were the State, Germany, mass movements and antisemitism.
Nietzsche is often popular on the far left, really. Though I don't think he would have liked communism either. (Was there anything Nietzsche liked, though, besides hiking? I'm not sure!)

Nietzsche's ideal, besides the Superman, was the Roman aristocrat. What he liked about them was how they oppressed the lower classes while contributing to culture. He also liked the faithless Islamic Caliphates and Japanese Shogunates for the same reasons. He thought Jews were playing a similar role in Germany, and that is why he despised antisemitism. He didn't like the old Germanic peoples as much. He liked the way they overthrew rotten old civilizations, but they didn't contribute to high culture in a way that Nietzsche liked.

Nietzsche's position is ridiculously evil in such a way that the average conspiracy theorist antisemite can't wrap their puny minds around it. Nietzsche agrees that Jews are oppressing the antisemite, and that is why he loves the Jews and hates the antisemite. If the antisemite lashes out against Nietzsche for this, he would interpret this reaction as a proof of their feebleness. Nietzsche also thinks that Jews are universally persecuted, and that is why he doesn't like the Jews as much as a Roman Emperor or an Islamic Caliph.

Nietzsche consistently loves those he sees as the persecutors and hates those he sees as the persecuted. He thinks the persecuted are weak. They are trying to organize and persecute the strong, but they are too feeble to contribute to high culture. Otherwise, they wouldn't be trying to persecute the strong. I think Nietzsche doesn't think of himself as weak because he's an artist, a poet who wrote The Gay Science and Thus Spake Zarathustra.

Nietzsche liked Roman Emperors more than Caliphs and Shoguns because the Romans were more selfishly individualistic. The selfishness is what he likes. This might be why wealthy liberals see Nietzsche as vindicating their position. Personally though, I think Nietzsche would despise contemporary liberals to the extent that economy rather than theft is the source of their wealth. Nietzsche hates economy and loves theft. He thinks only powerful thieves are true creators, and economy is degeneration from honest theft.

You see, all contemporary thinkers are using the word "creation" in a different way from Nietzsche. Nowadays, everyone thinks a creator makes useful things.* Nietzsche thinks someone who creates useful things is a destroyer of classical heroics and high culture. I think Nietzsche would like the way that Islamic terrorists are ruining the economy, the way they oppose bureaucratic states and the fact that they support aristocracy. He would hate them because they don't compose immortal poetry, because they are persecuted and because they find consolation in religion. But the most damning of all is that they are resisting powerful individuals.

Nietzsche would want Islamic terrorists to give blowjobs to the powerful, ditch their stale iron age faith, and become more competent in resisting their oppressors by embracing science, classical poetry and Nietzsche's Zarathustra. That is to say, by embracing what we, under Heidegger's influence, think of as a Nazi aesthetic (whereas, in reality, Nazism was driven by member berries, not science). In that light, I would characterize Nietzsche's ideology as aristocratic conservatism.

Personally, I don't think any powerful person becomes genuinely powerful by consistently giving blowjobs to the powerful. They might do it at times to get ahead, and they might tell others to do it once they themselves are powerful, but Nietzsche still has that old philosophical fetishism where he thinks holding a position grants magical powers.

*He does support things that are both useful and beautiful though. His example is breasts. Yes.

[rotting bones]

I find it a bit surprising to see Nietzsche defended by someone who basically sees anyone who shares any minor opinion with Heidegger as a nazi.

What does my defense of Nietzsche consist of in your opinion?

I might have given the impression that I'm totally opposed to Heidegger. I'm not. I think his ideas about anxiety have truth to them. I just think his nostalgia was at the root of his very explicit Nazism. I have every reason to think the same nostalgia is at the root of the technophobia in contemporary social theory. The whole “leftist” minimalist rural aesthetic has its theoretical roots in Heidegger’s member berries.

I also enjoy the movie Eraserhead BTW.

[rotting bones]

The idea of the superhuman was impressive back then -- it's really not some sort of Nazi, testosterone-poisoned thing. Still, I don't think Nietzsche is terribly clear on what exactly he's on about. That impressed me a lot when I was 17; I had a lot more patience with deep-sounding cryptic references back then. I think it'd annoy me now.

Nietzsche's Superman is not exactly a Nazi ideal, but it's not exactly not a Nazi ideal. The Superman is capable of Willing and suffering greatly without bowing down to false idols. The best men of the current generation are not Supermen, but they are capable of becoming the ancestors to Supermen. Who are the best men? The kings of the earth, the conscientious men (rationalists?), the voluntary beggars (Buddha-like world renouncers), the "magicians" (actors? liars? conmen?) and possibly The Ugliest Man (God choked to death on his own pity after looking at The Ugliest Man). (Edit: Also, ex-priests.) The fact that this generation doesn't contain the last men brings on The Great Noontide of Mankind, the time of great downgoings and overcomings.

I really liked the pseudo-biblical/mythological stylo too.

I liked the cryptic style better back then. There was an old but modern book, probably Irish, about the idols of a fictional country. There was one god who always pointed up. I can't find it, but it might be this one: https://archive.sacred-texts.com/neu/dun/gope/index.htm Do you know the one I'm talking about?

I do find it surprising too that Nietzsche, with all the focus on health and strength and will to power, was really pretty sick and miserable. Then again I guess chronic illness makes you figure out a few things. I still enjoy his quip that a lot of existential angst and unhappiness comes down to bad digestion.

People are obsessed with things they don't have. I wonder if this means theologians have been missing Godliness in their lives. This was true of Augustine, and religion is positively correlated with criminality.

On French literature: Nietzsche loved Stendhal. I can get why, given that Stendhal's heroes are very intense men, kind of Nietzschean in their own way. I don't know if Nietzsche realized that they're also more than a little ridiculous, and not the sharpest tools in the box.

I remember him saying Goethe showed his weakness as an artist because he preferred Shakespeare to Moliere.

As I recall, Zarathustra is very misogynistic. I'm inclined to think that's a huge flaw; Nietzsche basically ignored half (if not more) of human experience.

Honestly, I feel like Nietzsche is more respectful towards women than the most organized factions of the younger generation, who are fans of people like Sneako, the weakest man. For example, Nietzsche says that men are like children, and for men, women are the most dangerous plaything. This is more respectful than seeing women as safes that can be cracked if you know the right password. Even the notorious, "When thou goest to women, do not forget thy whip" seems a continuation of the theme that Nietzsche saw women as dangerous. Nietzsche was always terrified of women and never had much luck with them.

It's also possible that he was homosexual and agreed with the Greek philosophers that women are inferior (and therefore male-male relationships are superior).

[malloc]

Probably off-topic, but what the hell are "member berries"?

[rotting bones]

Probably off-topic, but what the hell are "member berries"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJoQJKTc3nM

[malloc]

Probably off-topic, but what the hell are "member berries"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJoQJKTc3nM

Well ok. I have never actually watched Southpark so I didn't get the reference. Pretty much everyone I know considers the show intensely bigoted and reactionary, for what it's worth.

[rotting bones]

Well ok. I have never actually watched Southpark so I didn't get the reference. Pretty much everyone I know considers the show intensely bigoted and reactionary, for what it's worth.

They were libertarians, but they do oppose Trump. Penn Jillette was libertarian too until 2020.