Questions on "Thus Spake Zarathustra," by Nietzsche

Interpretive questions

Prologue

Why must Zarathustra, like the sun, "go under" ? (p. 79) Was his ten years of solitude in the mountains a necessary precondition of "going under"?

Page 79 : Zarathustra to sun: "For ten years you have climbed to my cave: you would have tired of your light and of the journey had it not been for me and my eagle and my serpent." What do the eagle and the serpent represent (see also p. 93, section #10)?

Why does the saint whom Zarathustra encounters in the forest counsel him to "Give them [men] nothing! Rather, take part of their load and help them to bear it -- that will be best for them, if only it does you good!" (p. 81)

Zarathustra answers, "I give no alms. For that I am not poor enough?" What does this mean and why does the saint laugh when he hears it? (p. 81)

If Zarathustra has been in solitude himself for so long, why is he surprised to learn the saint doesn't know that "God is dead." (p. 81)?

P. 82: Zarathustra preaches to the people, "Behold, I teach you the overman. The overman is the meaning of the earth ..." Who is the "overman," and why is he the "meaning of the earth? What does Zarathustra mean by his next statement," viz., "I beseech you my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes."

P. 83: What is the "hour of great contempt" and why is it "the greatest experience you can have"?

Does the tightrope walker represent the overman? Is there a symbolism to Zarathustra carrying his corpse and then finally placing it in a hollow tree to protect it from wolves?

Interpret this line on p. 84: "What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end: what can be loved in man is that he is an overture and a going under.

Who is the "last man" referred to on page 86, and why is he contemptible?

Why is it an insight that Zarathustra will speak "not to the people but to companions"? (p.91) He also says, "Zarathustra shall not become the shepherd and dog of a herd." Why this apparent renunciation of a leadership role?

Zarathustra's Speeches

On the Three Metamorphoses

How does the spirit become a camel, a lion, and finally, a child (p.93)?

Zarathustra says (p. 93), "Why must he preying lion become a child?" Why, indeed?

What is the meaning of the "sacred Yes" (p. 93)

Why is the town in which Zarathustra sojourns for a awhile called "The Motley Cow" (p.93).

On the Afterworldly

What is Nietzsche's position on the "afterworld" as expressed in this section? Must people reject the afterworld to achieve the "overman"? (pp.95-98)

On the Despisers of the Body

What is Zarathustra's critique of the "despisers of the body." What does he mean when he says that they have become despisers of the body because their "self" wants to go under?

On the Preachers of Death

Who are "Preachers of Death?"

On the Thousand and One Goals

P. 103: "'To honor father and mother and to follow their will to the root of one's soul': this was the tablet of overcoming that another people hung up over themselves and became powerful and eternal therby'" Is this a reference to the Ten Commandments?

P. 104: Why does Zarathustra refer to good and evil as "lovers"?

On Free Death

P. 104: What does it mean to "die at the right time"?

What is the "golden ball" referred to on p. 105?

What is Zarathustra's critique of the life of Jesus (p.106)

On the Gift-giving Virtue

Is speaking in parables "the origin of virtue" (p. 108)

P. 110: "The man of knowledge must not only love his enemies, he must also be able to hate his friends." Discuss this alteration of a familiar maxim.

P. 110: "Dead are all gods: now we want the overman to live" Does this statement encapsulate Zarathustr's (Nietzsche's) message?

Evaluative Questions

Why does Nietzsche employ the literary device of an ancient Persian prophet to serve as his mouthpiece?

Is Zarathustra a poet? Philosopher? Prophet?

"A Book for All and None"

When Friedrich Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra was first published in the 1880s by E. W. Fritzsch in Leipzig, it carried the subtitle "ein büch für alle und keinen," ("a book for all and none").

The philosopher Karl Jaspers wrote of Thus Spake Zarathustra in his introduction to Nietzsche's philosophy, "What Nietzsche regarded as his magnum opus resists all traditional means of classification; it is to be taken as poetry as well as prophecy and philosophy; and still it cannot be viewed as precisely any of these (emphasis added).

Scholars dispute whether any one of Nietzsche's books really encapsulate the Nietzschean philosophy. In any event, as you read this month's selection, ask yourself, "Why is this 'for all and none'?"

A Few Tips on Hume

I offer the following tips in the hope they may be of assistance in addressing the discussion questions raised in my previous post:

Hume's epistemology (his theory of knowledge) is based on his definitions of impressions and ideas, which he has given earlier in A Treatise of Human Nature, of which "Of Personal Identity" is one short chapter.

Impressions: "Those perceptions which enter with most force and violence we may name impressions; and under this name I comprehend all our sensations, passions, and emotions, as they make their first appearance in the soul."

Ideas: "By ideas I mean the faint images of these [impressions] in thinking and reasoning; such as, for instance, are all the perceptions excited by the present discourse, excepting only those which arise from the sight and touch, and excepting the immediate pleasure or uneasiness it may occasion."

In "Of Personal Identity," Hume talks about objects. These are the impressions and ideas that constitute our mental activity. The key question to ask in reading the piece is, How are these objects, to employ a more modern term, processed? Does the "process" afford a true sense of personal identity to the individual? Or do the many changes in our perceptions through time, and our difficulty in summarizing past perceptions at any given time, undermine the sense of personal identity? Think of Heraclitus's river: Is it the same or constantly changing?

Hume asks, Can our mind change and still be the same?

Questions for "Of Personal Identity," by David Hume

1. Why, according to Hume, do "some philosophers" think "the strongest sensation, the most violent passion" makes us more aware of the self? (p. 65)
2. If we doubt of the self, then is there "anything of which we can be certain" (p. 65)?
3. Why does Hume define "self" as mind or consciousness? Are there other possible definitions?
4. Is Hume convincing when he says that because "pain and pleasure, grief and joy, passions and sensations" occur at different times, the "idea of self" cannot exist? (p. 66)
5. Is mind just a "bundle or collection of different perceptions"? (p. 66)
6. Can you conceive of the mind as a "kind of theatre" (p. 67)?
7. For analysis: "We have a distinct idea of an object that remains invariable ... " (p. 67) to "... nor find anything invariable and uninterrupted to justify our notion of identity."
8. Is a person comparable to a church that was originally built of brick but has been rebuilt of freestone? Is it a problem to call them the same church?
9. On page 72 Hume writes, "The identity which we ascribe to the mind of man is only a fictitious one, and of a like kind with that which we ascribe to vegetable and animal bodies. It cannot have a different origin, but must proceed from a like operation of the imagination upon like objects." Can we really use the same criteria in identifying a human mind as we would in indentifying a shrub or a crustacean?
10. Read and analyze paragraph starting on page 73 (ending page 74), "But lest this argument should not convince the reader .." to "according to the principles explained above."
11. Read and analyze Hume's discussion of the successive parts our thoughts as to their resemblance and causation on pages 74 and 75, starting "To begin with resemblance" and ending "And in this view our identity with regard to the passions serves to corroborate that with regard to the imagination, by making our distant perceptions influence each other, and by giving us a present concern for our past or future pains or pleasures."
12. Do you agree with Hume (p. 75) that memory is the source of personal identity, because it "acquaints us with the continuance and extent of this succession of perceptions"?
13. Hume asks (p. 75) "Who can tell me, for instance, what were his thoughts and actions on the first of January 1715, the eleventh of March 1719, and the third of August 1733?," and says the many gaps in our memory detract from our sense of personal identity. Do you agree?
14. Is Hume correct in arguing that "all the nice and subtle questions concerning personal identity can never possibly be decided, and are to be regarded rather as grammatical than as philosophical difficulties."
15. Can something that changes still be the same?
16. Is Hume saying (a) there is no self, or that it's (b) simply not something we are capable of knowing (i.e., not a "philosophical difficulty")?

David Hume (1711-1776)

Back in January of 2006, we discussed an excerpt from David Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature entitled "Of Justice and Injustice." This month we return to the Treatise with a piece called "Of Personal Identity."

Interesting that the editors of the Great Books Reading and Discussion Program would pick not one but two selections from the Treatise, since the book generated little excitement when it was first published in 1739. Hume later repackaged his ideas in a work entitled "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding."

D. G. C. McNabb in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy informs us that Hume was never an academic philosopher, but a "man of letters and to a lesser extent a man of affairs." He holds an important place in the history of philosophy as a radical empiricist and foil to rationalists like Immanuel Kant.

McNabb says Hume's primary motivation was to achieve fame in the literary and not in the philosophy world. If that were the case, why did he publish many of his works (including the Treatise) anonymously?

Questions on "A Simple Heart," by Flaubert

Did Félicité live a life worth living? Did Madame Aubain?

Is "A Simple Heart" a love story?

Why are the men in this story so unimpressive?

Why is Félicité's first communion less moving to her than Virginie's?

What is Flaubert's religious position? Is his realism to be taken at face value?

Is there a parallelism between the deaths of Victor and Virginie?

Why does Théodore's jilting of Félicité play an such an important role in the rest of her life?

Why is Madame Aubain so mean to Félicité?

Why does Flaubert have Félicité reject the Polish suitor over his theft of a salad (p. 49)?

Why, after Félicité and Madame Aubain exchange a kiss, does Flaubert say of Félicité that "Her native goodness unfolded in her heart"?

What does Loulou symbolize?

Is Loulou important in tying together the story?


For Textual Analysis

Pages 36-38, from "After bending her knee at the door" to "...but did not feel the same thrill."

Pages 46-48, from "For two whole nights Félcité did not leave to "...who had been paralyzed for some time."

Pages 55-56 from "The place contained such an assortment" to ..."stray in the direction of the bird."

Pages 60-62 , whole chapter

Author of the Month: Gustave Flaubert

The great French realist writer Gustave Flaubert (1821-1880) wrote to a female friend about month's selection, "A Simple Heart" (originally titled "L'Histoire d'un Coeur Simple" -- the "Story of a Simple Heart"). He said it "is nothing more or less than the account of an obscure life, that of a poor country girl, devout but not mystical, matter-of-factly devoted, tender with a tenderness redolent of freshly baked bread."*

*Letter to Edma Roger des Genettes, dated June 19, 1876 ; cited in Brown, Frederick, Flaubert: a Biography, New York: Little, Brown, 2006.