Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Post by **Lord Mhoram** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 6:46 pm

I'm reading it now. Easily one of the most inspiring books I've ever read. A combination of parables, speeches, poetry, philosophy, literature, biblical satire, and inspiration. Everyone should read it. I'll go more in-depth with it some time later, but for those who have read it, any thoughts?

"Life is only suffering" - so say others, and do not lie: see to it then that you cease! See to it then that the life which is only suffering ceases!

This is to me a true rejection of Buddhism, and indeed most religious philosophy. Buddhism teaches that life is suffering, and that you must almost passively accept it, and reject this world. Nietzsche through Zarathustra says that life is indeed suffering, but that you must not only recognize it, but conquer it.

Post by **Phantasm** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 7:05 pm

Hakuna Matata

Post by **Kil Tyme** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 7:39 pm

Koyaanisqatsi.

Post by **Creator** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 8:04 pm

Phantasm wrote:Hakuna Matata

YouTube · Post by **Menolly** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:50 pm

Kil Tyme wrote:Koyaanisqatsi.

Powaqqatsi

Post by **Lord Mhoram** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:28 pm

Um, okay.

Post by **duchess of malfi** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:50 am

Lord Mhoram wrote:I'm reading it now. Easily one of the most inspiring books I've ever read. A combination of parables, speeches, poetry, philosophy, literature, biblical satire, and inspiration. Everyone should read it. I'll go more in-depth with it some time later, but for those who have read it, any thoughts?

"Life is only suffering" - so say others, and do not lie: see to it then that you cease! See to it then that the life which is only suffering ceases!
This is to me a true rejection of Buddhism, and indeed most religious philosophy. Buddhism teaches that life is suffering, and that you must almost passively accept it, and reject this world. Nietzsche through Zarathustra says that life is indeed suffering, but that you must not only recognize it, but conquer it.

Sounds interesting.

I should probably read this.

I have always thought that you should learn from your suffering (primarily to have more compassion and love for others), then go on and have the best life that you can, incorporating your dearly bought lessons.

Post by **Lord Mhoram** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:21 am

I'm beginning to think so too, although a rejection of suffering once appealed to me.

Post by **spacemonkey** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:41 am

Suffering as a design is to be rejected from anyone human, it's only hindsight that makes the lessons important...........

YouTube · Post by **Menolly** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:48 am

Lord Mhoram wrote:Um, okay.

koyaanisqatsi.org

Post by **Creator** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:21 am

Menolly wrote:
Lord Mhoram wrote:Um, okay.
koyaanisqatsi.org

Very interesting.

I bet Lord Mhoram thought it was like "Hakuna Matata"

I certainly did until your post!

Post by **spacemonkey** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:50 am

That's REALLY odd!!!!

Post by **Lord Mhoram** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:27 am

Very strange!

But what it has to do with Nietzsche, I have no idea.

Post by **Avatar** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 5:41 am

Haha, this was one of my philosophy texts for uni.

Would have to read it again though...actually, think I just got my copy back from my mother.

It's pretty dense though...not the easiest reading. And so...metaphorical...from what I remember. Good stuff though on the whole. I certainly agree with a lot of it.

As for suffering though, I prefer this one, from an even better book.

An older student came to Otis and said, "I have been to see a great number of teachers and I have given up a great number of pleasures. I have fasted, been celibate and stayed awake nights seeking enlightenment. I have given up everything I was asked to give up and I have suffered, but I have not been enlightened. What should I do?"

Otis replied, "Give up suffering."

-- Camden Benares, "Zen Without Zen Masters"

--A

Post by **Gil galad** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:03 am

I have that book sitting on my shelf unread, it looks complicated.

Post by **Avatar** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:27 am

Haha. I found it easiest to just read it like a story first, then go back and think about what his words are metaphors for.

--A

Post by **Zarathustra** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:46 pm

This is one of my favorite books of all time. I can't believe I've only read it once.

I wouldn't read too much into the Buddhism/suffering thing. Nietzsche was primary concerned with repudiating Chritianity. Zarathrustra was an "anti-Christ" figure. Though, this is not to be confused with the Christian version of "anti-Christ"--this was a thematic relationship, not an engagement of the Christian mythology.

Where are you at in the book? What would you like to discuss?

Post by **Lord Mhoram** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:05 am

Malik,

Honestly, I'm still on the first set of speeches ("On Little Old and Young Women" currently) because school work takes up a lot of my time. I think I realize that Nietzsche isn't directly taking on Buddhism, but the ideas he put forth by extension are something of an attack on Buddhist ideals. I see a lot of direct refutations of Christianity (such as the speech that directly deals with Christ's golden rule, which I found to be the least convincing of all that I've read so far), and while I know that Nietzsche was extremely concerned with what he saw as the "empty moral claims" of Christianity, he deals with organized religion as a whole too I would think?

Post by **Avatar** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:52 am

I would think so. It just so happens that at his time and place, organised religion meant christianity. I'm pretty sure he would have been opposed to any religion, especially since they do tend to make moral claims.

--A

Post by **Zarathustra** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:20 pm

Nietzsche wasn't against morality or making moral claims. He was against moral systems which devalued life in this world. He wanted people to realize that all morality comes from Man (even when you think you got it from a God-carved stone tablet). And with this realization, we should understand that we are free to choose our own values, instead of choosing someone else's. And with this freedom, we must understand that we can direct our values to more noble things than the escapist, self-protecting, dehumanizing, childish values of the Christian mythology.

Most moral systems are "slave moralities," moral codes which limit strong, free spirits so that weak masses can have more power over them. Hence, the argument against the Golden Rule--it is a rule made to protect you from stronger people. Strong, self-actualized individuals don't need to go around insisting that people treat them as they themselves would like to be treated (i.e. "nicely"), precisely because strong, self-actualized free spirits make it a point to not avoid suffering and pain. They allow themselves to have "negative" experiences, to be free enough and strong enough to do this. [Nietzsche is the one who coined the phrase, "That which does not kill you makes you stronger."] You're not a true free spirit if your life is ruled by pain-avoidance or displeasure-avoidance. So for an Ubermench, the Golden Rule would actually be an endorsement to NOT treat people with kid gloves, because that's how you'd want to be treated yourself. His moral codes turn every one of Christianity's upside-down.

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Re: Thus Spoke Zarathustra