This post will discuss Friedrich Nietzche’s ‘Thus Spoke Zarathustra’. It is not meant to be a review. Instead, it is a novice’s attempt to talk about their experience of reading and learning about a particular philosophical thinker. I will elaborate on the ideas that I found most interesting in Nietzche’s work and raise any other points I think are important.

Friedrich Nietzche’s ‘Thus Spoke Zarathustra’ is a nineteenth-century philosophical novel which takes the form of a series of teachings by the eponymous prophet Zarathustra, who himself is named after the ancient Persian prophet Zoroaster. The format of this book is therefore unusual and interesting and I found it to be one of its most endearing qualities- although it sometimes makes it harder to read. The passages in ‘Thus Spoke Zarathustra’ are loosely connected through a thin storyline, which documents the prophet’s journeys and teachings, and a number of themes. I will now discuss the latter.

The first interesting theme found in ‘Thus Spoke Zarathustra’ is Nietzche’s attack on contemporary religion and metaphysics. When Zarathustra speaks to a saint he claims he ‘has not yet heard in his forest that God is dead!’. Nietzche’s death of God is mainly targeting the Christian tradition. For example, he criticises priests, claiming ‘He whom they call Redeemer has cast them into bondage – into the bondage of false values and false scriptures!’. Nietzche then comments ‘ah that someone could redeem them from their Redeemer!’ However, while Nietzche targets Christianity in particular, I was under the impression that the ‘death of God’ goes beyond religion- it as an attack on the tradition of Western thought as whole. His focus on Christianity is only prevalent throughout his work because it was the dominant belief system of his time and place.

The wider implications of the ‘death of God’ are found when Nietzche denounces the traditional morality system of good and evil, which have been central to most Western ways of thinking throughout history. While talking about the three evils, he claims ‘Sensual pleasure, lust for power, selfishness: these three have hitherto been cursed the most and held in the worst and most unjust repute’. Nietzche here shocked me, something he does a lot, and I dare say that I do not wholly agree with him. However, his critiques of good and evil are a necessary part of his effort to undermine Western values as a whole.

On the same subject of morality, I was especially interested about what Nietzche had to say about virtue. I have read a lot about Stoic ethics and I think it is a pretty good, if not perfect, way to approach a lot of (if not all) scenarios in life. Virtue is a cornerstone of Stoicism so Nietzche’s response to it was something I paid attention to. Zarathustra states ‘there is no reward-giver nor paymaster’ and ‘I do not even teach that virtue is its own reward.’ This stance is clearly against traditional notions of virtue, Zarathustra even claims that we should ‘grow weary of the words ‘reward’, ‘retribution’, ‘punishment’, ‘righteous revenge.’ Nietzche is certainly condemining how we would usually see virtue, in particular by criticising Christianity regarding how it sometimes sees our actions as having an eternal consequence. So what is virtue to Nietzche? It may intially appear that that he does not believe in it as concept, but this is not the case. This is shown by how Zarathustra claims ‘that your virtue is your Self and not something alien’. What does this mean? To understand it we have to discuss Nietzche’s notion of the Superman.

The idea of the Superman is introduced very early in ‘Thus Spoke Zarahustra’. The eponymous prophet states ‘I teach you the Superman. Man is something that should be overcome’ and ‘all creatures hitherto have created something beyond themselves.’ A Superman is therefore someone who overcomes himself (through self-mastery) and who creates something beyond himself and beyond the values he has inherited. Virtue, to Nietzche, is associated with this overcoming of oneself through willpower. Another important point is raised here. Before I read ‘Thus Spoke Zarathustra’ I unfairly equated Nietzche with nihilism (a belief that life is meaningless) because of his rejection of contemporary values. However, Nietzche, at least at his point in his life, was not a nihilist. The Superman is meant as a replacement for tradition and is something that gives meaning to life, as one tries to strive towards it.

A key aspect of the Superman I found interesting is his association with creation. The Superman is meant to go beyond himself (his cotingent background) and be inventive. Zarathustra says ‘I love him who wants to create beyond himself’. For Nietzche, the Superman is somone who goes further than the values they have inherited and creates new ones for himself. This is shown by how Zarathustra claims ‘he who has to be a creator in good and evil, truly, has first to be a destroyer and break values’. Only by getting rid of old values can one create new ones (new ideas of good and evil). Nietzche also comments on people who tend to be creative, in particular he focuses on scholars and poets. For example, Zarathustra is made to crticise poets by saying ‘I have grown weary of the poets, the old and the new: they all seem to me superficial and shallow seas ‘ and ‘they have not thought deeply enough.’ For Nietzche, poets may be creators, but they have not gone beyond themselves like the Superman. Likewise, scholars are condemned for being ‘mere spectators in everything’. Merely producing something that uses old values is not the same as creating something new.

While reading Nietzche’s attacks on contemporary values and his idea of the Superman, I could not help thinking of the American philospher Richard Rorty. In particular, his idea of the Liberal Ironist as found in his 1989 book ‘Contingency, Irony and Solidarity.’ A Liberal Ironist is someone who recognises the contingency of their vocabulary and background. Nietzche, like Rorty, is sceptical of the vocabulary used at his time and strives to go beyond it. However, Nietzche, unlike the Liberal Ironist, believes in an ulimate vocabulary that is true- the idea of the Superman and his will. It therefore comes as no suprise, that Rorty actually uses Nietzche in his book as an example of an ironist, while still criticising his occasional slide back into metaphysics through the concept of the Superman.

A passage I found especially interesting in ‘Thus Spoke Zarathustra’ can be linked to another philosopher, namely Jacques Derrida and his work ‘Of Grammatology.’ Nietzche comments on writing during the first part of ‘Thus Spoke Zarathustra’ and claims it can be used as a weapon against metaphysics by stating ‘he who knows the reader, does nothing further for the reader. Another century of readers-and spirit itself will sink’. Only writing is creative and can go beyond itself, Zarathustra loves ‘only that which is written with blood.’ It is interesting to see how writing is seen by Nietzche as something that can criticise traditional metaphysics. This is because traditionally Western societies have been logocentric (which Derrida notices) and have placed writing as below speech, therefore not giving it power to attack metaphysics. Nietzche therefore, like Derrida, inverts the traditional role of wrting in society to attack his inherited tradition.

Another theme that is found in ‘Thus Spoke Zarathustra’ is the idea of eternal recurrence. While talking to a dwarf, Zarathustra claims ‘all things have been here before’ and using a metaphor of a long lane states that time ‘goes on for an eternity’. The idea found here suggests that because time is eternal all events must inevitably repeat themselves due to the infinite nature of reality. I found this a rather interesting idea and it again corrected my misunderstanding that Nietzche was a complete nihilist- he believed in a certain metaphysics, even if it was an unconventional one.

So far, I have not really raised many crticisms of Nietzche. However, there were many points I found in ‘Thus Spoke Zarathustra’ that felt uncomfortable to my postmodern sensibilities. For example, his attitude towards women. Zarathustra states ‘everything about woman has one solution: it is called pregnancy’ and the prophet hopes they exclaim ‘may I bear the Superman!’. Aside from this, Nietzche is also crticial of the ill, lame and the rabble. This may be because he is so keen for Zarathustra to be an inversion of Jesus. Nevertheless, comments such as ‘where the rabble also drinks all wells are poisoned’ raise my ire, at what is otherwise an outstanding philosophical work. It is easy to see how Nietzche was abused by Nazism with statements like these. On the other hand, maybe these crticisms only feel valid because I am a Nietzche novice. There are certainly nuances to his work. For example, Zarathustra often claims pity is bad, but then later takes pity himself on a man he accidentally trod over. However, I still find reading Nietzche uncomfortable at times- but maybe that was the point.

Overall, then I enjoyed reading ‘Thus Spoke Zarathustra’ and while it has its faults, it is an interesting philosophical work. I particularly liked the format of a ‘novel’ and the idea of creating new values. Even so, I do not agree with the extent of his aggression against religion and Christianity and find some of ‘Thus Spoke Zarathustra’ unsavoury reading. Nevertheless, it is still a fascinating text.