Thread replies: 7
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: nietzsche.jpg (165KB, 773x1024px) Image search:
[Google]
165KB, 773x1024px
I'm about to finish Thus Spoke Zarathustra. I'll be done by the end of the month. I've loved it, although I think there's a lot of it I haven't understood. It's the first Nietzsche I've read.
The part I've liked the best is what I understand as the meaning of the term "beyond good and evil", namely- looking past a moral code and looking for what that society, or that person, value(s). It is from attributing value to something that good and evil grow. And a creator is someone who dares assign value, rather than just follow those that have been created by others. An over-man is he who dances with ease over the spirit of heaviness- it is someone who looks through what gives heaviness weight and refuses to be held by it.
I would like to read more about this. Maybe this question answers itself, but I figured there's no harm in asking: first of all- would you agree with my understanding of the over-man? And second: is the book "Beyond Good and Evil" where I ought to go if this is what I like best about Nietzsche? Frankly I like his style in Zarathustra a hell of a lot too, it's a beautiful and fun book to read, really a great read. That's something I appreciate about him too. Is BGaE similar in style?
>>
yes read beyond good and evil next then on the genealogy of morals then the will to power to gain a better grasp of what he was trying to say in thus spoke zarathustra
thus spoke is written completely unlike his other stuff. the 3 texts I mentioned above are al extended essays that allow you to understand him much more easily.
>would you agree with my understanding of the over-man?
I don't think you provided an understanding of that, you just used some of the same words he used. its the meaning behind those words which are important and you can get a better sense of that meaning by reading his other works
>>
>>9643832
the origin of it all eludes me, where the will to power would come from. what's the point, so to speak. from Zarathustra I get the impression that that is *his* heaven, not a generalized heaven. Being a creator is what he values.
do you think Nietzsche was a believer in free will? do you think he thinks there are basic, common evaluations, such as hunger being bad, or is it all created by us at some point? maybe that's part of what the other texts talk about.
>>
>>9643855
>>do you think Nietzsche was a believer in free will?
no, he explicitly rejected it.
>do you think he thinks there are basic, common evaluations, such as hunger being bad, or is it all created by us at some point?
you seem to be confusing practical evaluations with moral evaluations. his focus was on moral evaluations.
>>
>>9643861
>no, he explicitly rejected it.
good.
>you seem to be confusing practical evaluations with moral evaluations
I didn't think about it that way. is a moral evaluation one that's done about something that is not strictly necessary for life? or perhaps one that is formed of thought rather than feeling?
>>
>>9643873
he would do a better job answering those questions in his other works I recommended. sorry don't have the ability to quote stuff right now
>>
An Overman is a godlike being. The three metamorphoses are what defines him. The lion part is what gives me the most trouble though. What is a lion? One who has become dominant over values. Who sees them as beneath him and is capable of freeing himself from the burdens of responsibility. I think. If Nietzsche was no Overman then neither was Beethoven or Picasso or whoever people on Sparknotes claim they are lol. He is something higher, practically defined by his heights.
Thread posts: 7
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1