BENDING CALYPSO: A SEARCH FOR MEANING IN FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE'S

THUSSPOKEZARATHUSTRA

By

Elliot Lyons

Submitted to the

Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences

of American University

in Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of the Arts

In

Philosophy

Date

2008

American University

Washington, D.C. 20016

AMERICAN UNIVERSllY LIBRARY UMI Number: 1455148

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

® UMI

UM I M icroform 1455148 Copyright 2008 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC 789 E. Eisenhower Parkway PO Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 BENDING CALYPSO: A SEARCH FOR MEANING IN FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE'S

THUSSPOKEZARATHUSTRA

BY

Elliot Lyons

ABSTRACT

Friedrich Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra is seemingly a polemic on

Christianity, with Zarathusra being the bete noire of the pious and devout. One could conversely, due to the similarities between Zarathustra and the Christian scriptures, argue Nietzsche as well as Zarathustra uphold Christianity. However, neither of these black-and-white explanations are adequate towards the goal of understanding Zarathustra because, as I argue, his text is meant to explicate and display a spiritual journey and process, one in which Christianity must be overcome due to it's unhealthy spiritual repercussions, being recognized as a malady and thus a starting point for spiritual growth; much like Nietzsche believes that Socrates' philosophy reminds us of the need of its antithesis, art, for the formation of Greek tragedy. From the tension between Zatrathustra and his antithesis, Jesus, arises a healthy, progressive spirit which has utilized the past,

Christianity, to propel itself into the future.

ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge, first and foremost, Matthew Emmanuel Strand for kindling my interest in philosophy of religion by introducing me to Kierkegaard, an interest without which this thesis would have never come to be.

Additionally, there are those who challenged me by trying to understand my ideas, and consequently forced me to revise them and relay them in a more palpable manner. To all of you, namely my father and Emily Channell, my deepest gratitude is extended.

There are also my advisors, Andrea Tschemplik and James Stam, who wholeheartedly took-on the task of overseeing my thesis despite the fact that I had begun it only months before it was due.

Lastly, and certainly not the least in terms of importance, I would like to acknowledge my mother, whose encouragement and support have consistently sustained me throughout the years: to you, I owe the world and then some.

Ill TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iii

Chapter

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1. A GOD RECALIMS ITS THRONE: SPIRITUALITY WITH A HAMMER ...... 6

Critical Components to Understanding Zarathustra: Over and Under

The Perilous Nature of Overcoming: Walking the Tight-Rope

Oh My God is Dead!: The Significance of Irrelevance

Bad Air Bad Air!: The Genealogy of Morals and the Re-evaluation of Values Stages of the Spirit: The Camel, Lion, and the Child

Eternal Return to Nowhere: A Philosophy of Existence

2. CHAPTER TWO: BEHOLD:THE MOVEMENT OF THE BIRTH OF THE COOL ...... 37

Hegel: Aufhebung and Growth through Negation

Ecce Homo, Gay Science, and the Birth of Tragedy: Nietzsche's Advise to the Reader

Nietzsche, Socrates, and Music: Marching to a Different Beat

The Tragedy of Socrates: The Dionysian and the Apollonian

Socrates' Redemption?: Cultivation of the Arts in the Phaedo

3. JESUS AND ZARATHUSTRA GO TO THE MIKVEH ...... 62

Jesus as Physician: Bringing Israel Back to God

IV Zarathustra as Physician/Teacher: Not Leading those who Follow

Jesus Denies his Followers: Denial, Contradiction, and the Strength of the Divine Call

The Reconciliation of Opposites: A Higher Purpose

The Last Temptation: Pity

CONCLUSION ...... 88

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 91

v INTRODUCTION

Faust: What do you want of me, To tum to stone? That's not where my salvation lies. Shuddering awe is the greatest part of man. However fiercely the world may seek to stifle it, Once we're stirred profoundly, We're open to the infinite. 1 --Goethe, Faust

Friedrich Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra presents a challenging philosophy wrapped in an even more challenging imagery littered with metaphor and allusion. One of the most prominent and recognizable elements of Zarathustra is Nietzsche's use of the bible, an issue that creates more questions than answers. A question which stands above the rest is why does Nietzsche use this particular element, the bible, when constructing a philosophy that is so opposed to this very biblical element, and not only this, but the religions which claim its pages as their own, specifically Christianity and Judaism?

Another question that arises is why craft philosophy in prose, two things which seem to serve two very different ends.

The answer to these questions is deceptively basic, but its simplicity introduces us to deeper levels of meaning in the text. Nietzsche realized the power of images, signs, and symbols to point beyond the words that describe them, and thusly crafted the story of

1 Johan Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust, trans. Carl R. Mueller (Hanover: Smith and Krauss, 2004). 2

Zarathustra and his spiritual journey around this idea; it is the prose that stirs the soul, inspiring it to move and progress, breaking it from its otherwise sedentary, stone-dead existence. There is, however, accompanying this felt or intuited nature of the spiritual journey, a rational side also: one must discontinue propagating systems and ideals that no longer function. 2 In this thesis, I seek to prove how Nietzsche uses biblical imagery to shudder the soul and ignite the spirit in a new way, a way which negates many Christian elements and at the same time uplifts others, creating something distinctly new, but built upon the old.

I therefore approach the text of Zarathustra from a standpoint of trying to understand how Nietzsche wanted his philosophy to be used, not arguing whether or not he liked or disliked so and so; rather, I essay to peer into how he uses particular thoughts within the greater context of his philosophy, or in other words, how his opinions work to produce and serve the goal of overcoming in his work in general and in particular

Zarathustra. My method of inquiry will go as follows: I will begin in chapter one with a general look at how the spiritual functions in Zarathustra to an analysis, in the second chapter, of Nietzsche's particular relationship to Socrates and its function within

Nietzsche's general philosophy of overcoming. The third chapter will use the first two chapters as a basis for a look at Zarathustra's affinity to Jesus. More will be explained below.

The first chapter, "A God Reclaims its Throne: Spirituality with a Hammer," seeks to highlight the spiritual nature of Zarathustra in light of its biblical allusions and the

2 I am heavily indebted to Paul Tillich and his explanation of the difference between symbols and signs and also Ruldolph Otto for his thoughts on the place of the rational and the mystical within the holy. 3

spiritual messages the work strives to overthrow; that of slave morality which spawned

Christianity, ressentiment, and nihilism. What is indispensable to understanding this

"spiritual nature" of Zarathustra is the idea of overcoming, whether it be the Judaeo­

Christian morality system or a tooth ache, and that in overcoming we affirm ourselves as human beings. Consequently, when Nietzsche casts aside Christianity using its own, albeit perverted, imagery he is saying no to that particular type of spirituality and yes to a new, healthier form, that represented by the process of overcoming.

Nietzsche's use of biblical imagery and Christianity is, however, not simply a negation of something detrimental; it is also a recognition of the place Christianity has in the development, one could say, evolution, of the spirit. This complex spiritual relationship, which includes negation as well as recognition is detailed in the second chapter, "Behold!: The Movement of the Birth of the Cool." Here, I seek to display the spiritual movement of Nietzsche's seemingly pure antagonism for prominent figures through chronicling his relationship to Socrates, a relationship that can be described using the oppositional and expositional language of the Hegelian Aujhebung. I chose this term because it means to both preserve and to, at the same time, cancel, having recognition as one of its critical components, being something that Nietzsche does in his critique of

Socrates through recognizing the place Socratic thought has in forcing us to push beyond our boundaries.

The third chapter re-focuses on Zarathustra, and in particular Zarathustra's affinity to Jesus. The similarities between Jesus and Zarathustra exist in both speech and deed.

However, the majority of Nietzsche's grafting of Jesus onto the character of Zarathsutra is done in jest, with scenes such as the ass festival which is supposed to conjure up the 4

Sermon on the Mount. When considered with Nietzsche's general aim of overthrowing

Christianity, what results, seemingly, is Zarathustra being a work of wholehearted condemnation. Nietzsche, as is the case with Socrates (chapter two) and the issue of religious imagery in general (chapter one), seeks to create something new through the tension between the old and the new, the latter being represented by the character

Zarathustra. Zarathustra's spiritual uniqueness is formed through the expositional nature of his goings over and under, movements where he encounters and struggles with Jesus and the religion that bears his name.

In this paper, I will not distinguish between Jesus, i.e the historical Jesus without trappings of the divine, and Jesus the Christ or "anointed one." I shall not venture to make this distinction because who Jesus was is not important: it is what he preached-the imaginary revenge and ressintiment of slave morality-that held power and still holds sway over people and thus why Nietzsche sought its elimination. Notwithstanding the issue that, for Christians, the Jesus Christ event is the foundation for religious experience,3 I choose to focus on the content of this event because this is what Nietzsche took issue with. My goal, thus, is to not downplay the importance of Jesus as the Christ or his roles as the centerpiece of the Christian religion, while not letting this issue, his divinity, take prominence over his message.

3 "Christian theology is based on the unique event Jesus the Christ, and in spite of the infinite meaning of this event it remains this event and, as such, the criterion of every religious experience." Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology Vol.I (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951 ). p.46. Or, in the introduction of Friedrich Schleiemacher' s seminal work, The Christian Faith, ed. H.R. Mackintosh and J.S. Stewart (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), "Christianity is a monotheistic faith, belonging to the teleological type of religion, and is essentially distinguished from other such faiths by the fact that in it everything is related to the redemption accomplished by Jesus of Nazareth." 52. 5

To take care of a few clerical matters, I have chosen to quote Zarathustra in the

German because it conveys a feeling that is not necessarily present when read in English, a feeling which conveys some of the mystical character of the work; however, one still, when reading Zarathustra in English, gets an idea as to the magnitude of the work. I will not use the German for any other of Nietzsche's works. Two terms I use often in this work are spiritual and religious, and I take both in the broadest of meanings. I do this because, while Nietzsche's Zarathustra is not religious in any standard, systematic sense, i.e possessing a canon or any certain structure, it still retains some semblance of the

"religious" through its content or, generally, its spirituality; reading Zarathustra gives the reader a spiritual feeling, as we are familiar with the saying that something is that "type" of thing, Zarathustra maintains that general, spiritual or religious "type." CHAPTER 1

A GOD RECALIMS ITS THRONE: SPIRITUALITY WITH

AHAMMER

It is all too easy to place Nietzsche in the category with heretics and religious naysayers, burning him at the stake, rather than trying to understand him on his own ground. Yet, in Nietzsche's philosophically challenging work, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, there is a religious, spiritual, or mystical nature present in the text in the form of

Zarathustra's language and ideas. Concerning this language and the ideas that issue from it, Zarathustra speaks of spiritual growth in terms of transcendence and overcoming, not in a systematic sense, but on terms more akin to a process. Furthermore, in the process of overcoming and the development of the spirit, he takes religious ideas and frees them from their contexts in order to create something new and transcend life in order to get it back in all its fullness, contrasting the task of (western) religion which seeks transcendence of this life for another, supernatural life. Thus, the task of this chapter is to explore the religious import in Zarathustra so that Nietzsche can be reclaimed from among the ashes of the heathens and apostates.4

Before I wander into the discussion of the specifics of Zarathustra, I will set the stage with a few general comments about the work itself. Firstly, Zarathustra is the work

4 In demonstrating the religious language and ideas of Nietzsche in Zarathustra, I will also use the Genealogy ofMorals to highlight exactly what Nietzsche thinks is detrimental to healthy growth 6 7

where Nietzsche proclaims that God is dead. God had previously provided humanity with a supernatural purpose to life-he made life meaningful, but now that he is dead, it is man who has to take the reins and make something out of his life; it is he that has to put meaning back into thi.s void. Nietzsche believes that humanity is in a state that needs to be overcome and transcended, and for this task he gives us the overman whose job is to create a new means of striving that transcends culture and the things that go along with it such as religion.

There is, thus, no supernatural meaning to life as in the Judaeo-Christian sense, but meaning is found, as Walter Kaufmann writes in his notes to the prologue of the work,

"on earth, in this life ... in the few human beings who raise themselves above the all-too- human mass."5 The view of the meaning of life is not the outcome of evolution-this would be the last man-but a product of what we do with our lives here on earth.6 To further explain this lastman, s/he is the outcome of nihilism which is characterized by moral fatigue or apathy, the inability to strive, leading to the characteristic that, for the nihilist, all goals are equally meaningless (because there is no standard for evaluation that can be used to guide the decision-making process). 7 What opposes this lastman is the overman who exemplifies taking life in all its fullness as it exists on earth, and this overman is beautifully elucidated by Nietzsche in the prologue of the text within the context of the doctrines of going over and under.

5Friedrich Nietzsche, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" in The Portable Nietzsche ed., Walter Kaufmann (New York: Penguin Books, 1982) 116. I will henceforth refer to this work, Zarathustra, as "Kaufmann. Zarathustra" in order to note its use in this paper as a translation. 6 Ibid, 115-116. 7 Nietzsche speaks of this in the preface to the Genealogy ofMorals. 8

Critical Components to Understanding Zarathustra: Over and Under

The beginning of the dialogue is very important because here Nietzsche first mentions the themes of going over and under, two themes which are critical to understanding not only this work, but the religions tone which his writing takes on. Here,

Zarathustra is coming down from the mountain to bring the people below the overman.

He says:

Siehe! Ich bin meiner Weisheit i.iberdri.issig, wie die Biene, die des Honigs zuviel gesammelt hat, ich bedarf der Hiinde, die sich ausstrecken. Ich mochte verschenken und austeilen, bis die Weisen unter den Menschen wieder einmal ihrer Torheit und die Armen wieder einmal ihres Reichtums froh geworden sind. Dazu muss ich in die Tiefe steige .... Ich muss, gleich dir, untergehen, wie die Menschen es nennen, zu denen ich hinab will. 8

Zarathustra does not seek to share with the people what he has found, but to release it upon them; he must become an empty vessel, giving away what he has within him. It is through this going down and emptying of the self that he will "become man again."9

Hence, he is going down a changed man, being full of wisdom that he needs to give to the people so he does not become like an over-ripe fruit and spoil.

Already here we can see that there is something of the religious in the style of the work because we have Zarathustra, who has just spent ten years in the mountains, being the ascetic, thinking about life and its meaning, going down to tell or rather preach to the

8 "Behold, I am weary of my wisdom, like a bee that has gathered too much honey; I need hands out-stretched to receive it. I would give away and distribute, until the wise among men find joy in their folly, and the poor in their riches. For that I must descend to the depth .... Like you [the sun] I must go under-go down, as is said by man, to whom I want to descend." Kaufmann. Zarathustra. Book I, prologue § 1.

9 Ibid, Book I, prologue § 1. 9

people what he has found-the overman. 10 This idea of being alone in the mountains with the animals and plants for ten years in contemplation is mystical because he is in communion with what is natural. Zarathustra, at this point, is a Mensch in direct contact with the earth, being in unity with it and not, as he enjoins others to do, sinning against the earth which amounts to being an effect of taking care of what exists and is immediate over that which does not, namely God. Additionally, given the fact that he comes down to give out of a love for humanity, he acquires the appearance of a prophet, more specifically, of Moses coming down from the cloud-shrouded mountain to give his people the Ten Commandments. Also, he can be seen as prophetic because he is moved by what is inside him, with the desire to make life better for those he talks to, those that are in error, idol worshipers, through the opening of their eyes to the realization of true humanity-the overman.

This scene where Zarathustra descends the mountains to give the people the overman, resembles the words of Jesus to Simon Peter at the Lord's Supper, with Jesus speaking in the following manner; "Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren." 11 Peter must, before he can aid others, go to Jesus; Zarathustra, contrastingly, must go into the mountains and into himself. Zarathustra is not the herald or prophet of a God, but stands as a herald for the non-divine human who will be the revolutionary change for humanity-the overman.

10 This is a bit ironic because, as we shall see later, although he is very much like a preacher or a prophet, he does not want followers/disciples.

11 Luke22:31-32. New King James version. 10

Moreover, not only this, but he is on the verge of error and estrangement from he who can provide salvation, the overman, just as the crowd Zarathustra speaks to is in danger of sinning against the earth.

Here Zarathustra is a prophet, but there are no trappings of the divine, for he is just a man and it is here, on this earth as a person, that human beings will find their meaning.

Thus, although Zarathustra shares the traits of the conventional prophet because he is moved by what is inside, this somewhat differs from the traditional religious conception of a prophet because there inspiration comes from above, triggering something inside.

Yet, these are not the only characteristics of a prophet, for a prophet is called to service, and Zarathustra, too is, called, but in a different way.

In the opening scenes where Zarathustra is descending from the mountains, he is indeed moved by something inside, but it ends here: there is no higher power that has chosen him for the task of bringing "fire" (the overman) to the people like there was with

Moses. Hence, it seems the question with Nietzsche is not who, as in some divine power, gives our lives meaning, but what we do with the lives we have. So, what occurs here is

Nietzsche is taking the concept of a prophet and changing the focus from the divine to humans. To clarify, a prophet is conventionally someone who is tied to, and is even a representative of the divine, with the divine being what is best and most good.

Zarathustra, conversely, is not a representative of the divine, but represents what is best in man; 12 hence the change in focus is from the divine to man.

12 Although Zarathustra is a herald of the overman, he too must be overcome along with the overman. 11

Additionally, in his descent from his mountain, he crosses paths with an old man, a saint, which further expands on his concepts of going down and over (overcoming). The old man sees Zarathusrta, proclaiming, "Nicht fremd ist mir dieser Wanderer: vor manchem Jahre ginger hier vorbei. Zarathustra hiess er; aber er hat sich verwandelt.

Damals trugst du deine Asche zu Berge: willst du heute dein Feuer in die Taler tragen?"13

When Zarathustra ascended, he carried his ashes with him, and this, combined with later comments, point to the fact that Nietzsche believes in a constant cycle of overcoming and that one must knock down the structures that constitute the self-such as morality--in order to create.

Later in the first part of the work in the section titled, "On the Way of the Creator,"

Zarathustra thus examines life as:

Einsamer, du gehst den Weg zu dir selber! Und an dir selber fiihrt dein Weg vorbei, und an deinen sieben Teufeln! Ketzer wirst du dir selber sein und Hexe und Wahrsager und Narr und Zweifler und Unheiliger und Bosewicht.Vebrennen must du dich wollen in deiner ei~nen Flamme: wie wolltest du neu werden, wenn du nicht erst Asche geworden bist! 1

Here, we have Nietzsche vocalizing the idea that creation comes through opposition which includes the replacement of old ideals with the new. However, this is not a

13 "No stranger to me is this wanderer: many years ago he passed this way. Zarathustra he was called, but he has changed. At that time you carried your ashes to the mountains; would you now carry your fire into the valleys?" Kaufmann. Zarathustra. Book I, prologue § 2.

14 "Lonely one, you are going the way to yourself. And your way leads past yourself and your seven devils. You will be a heretic to yourself and a witch and soothsayer and a fool and a doubter and unholy one and a villain. You must wish to consume yourself in your own flame: how could you wish to become new unless you had first become ashes." Ibid, Book I. 12

complete overhauling, but one where we take the old ideals and tum them over to find a more healthy way to live: a fine tuning15 of life.

Therefore, in creation, we first have to spiritually break ourselves down, make ourselves ashes, and from these ashes create something. This breaking-down or re- evaluation of the self is itself a going under. What Zarathustra does in the beginning is, having ascended the mountain, broken himself down through reevaluating the self, making himself new, and now before he can do this again, he must descend and bring his thoughts and his newly constituted spirit, his idea or overman-fire-to the people: he must release it upon them, so he can become empty and being anew.

It is indeed interesting that Nietzsche uses the images of fire and ashes, because we know fire creates ashes. What this imagery says is that development and creation are not easy; it is unlike the burning bush of the Hebrew Scriptures that was on fire but not consumed. Here Nietzsche is making the proclamation that for something new to be created some old artifice or artifices-- religion, culture, and its conditioning-- need to be burned down. In the Genealogy ofMorals, Nietzsche supports this in reference to the origin of the Christian God; "I end up with three question marks; that seems plain. 'what are you really doing, erecting an ideal or knocking one down?' I may perhaps be asked

.... If a temple is to be erected a temple must be destroyed: that is the law-let anyone who can show me a case in which it is not fulfilled!" 16 Here, employing the concepts of

15 A hammer is a dual-purpose instrument that can be used to destroy things, as well as to put them back together. The latter of these concepts is evident in the fact that the German word for hammer can also mean tuning fork. Hence it seems that overcoming and creation for Nietzsche involve both of these aspects. 16 Friedrich Nietzsche, Genealogy ofMorals ed., trans., Walter Kaufmann (New York: Vintage Books, 1967) Second Essay, §24. 13

burning, ascent, and descent, Nietzsche is using religious images to support a new philosophy that goes against established religion. Hence, it seems that he is not necessarily dismissing religion entirely, but he is taking it and developing its essence, that of overcoming, into something that is, he believes, going to be more relevant to people's lives now that the central character of religion, God, is dead. Yet, what is immanent in overcoming is an acute sense of risk, for what are we left with once all is lost?

The Perilous Nature of Overcoming: Walking the

Tight-Rope

The image of tight-rope walkers represent this sense ofrisk in overcoming.

Zarathustra sets-up this situation by proclaiming, "Der Mensch ist ein Seil, gekntipft zwischen Tier und Ubermensch--ein Seil Uber einem Abgrunde." 17 In this scene, the pertinent questions deal with what the tightrope walkers represent.

In general, the tightrope walkers represent risk and danger. One of the tightrope walkers, being surpassed by the other, decides to commit suicide by jumping off of the rope. This could be interpreted as a warning that the risk of trying to overcome and being a creator is great and that one must not be of a weak heart when taking on this challenge because it could result in a calamity such as a moral death and so end in nihilism: one must become hard. For the second walker taunts the first: "Vorwarts Lamfuss ... Was treibst du hier zwischen Ttirmen? In die Turm gehorst du, einsperren sollte man dich,

17 "Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman-a rope over an abyss." Kaufmann. Zarathustra. Book I, prologue § 4. 14

einem Bessem, als du bist."18 This voice, that of the second walker, is the voice of the spirit of gravity which is the weight of convention-morals, God, norms, and the like- which serves to keep people from overcoming, keeping them from making the journey over the abyss into uncharted territory: this is the voice that says no to life. What supports this are the words of the tightrope walker who leaps to his death, for he says, "ich wusste lange,

A powerful example of the perilous nature involved in creating and overcoming is the philosopher in Plato's cave allegory who comes back to the cave after seeing reality and is met with hostility and murmurs of disbelief by those who remained chained, leading to his death. The danger that the philosopher encountered was caused by how his ideas disrupted the way of life and more importantly the way of thinking about life: he wanted to tum their heads away from the shadows. This is also similar to Zarathustra who, upon descending the mountain, says, "Sie verstehen mich nicht: ich bin nicht der

Mund ftir diese Ohren ... Und nun blicken sie mich an und lachen: und indem sie lachen,

18 Forward, lamefoot ... What are you doing between towers? The tower is where you belong ... you block the way for one better than yourself. Ibid, Book I, prologue § 6. 19 "I have long known that the devil would trip me." Ibid, Book I, prologue§ 6. 20 This is a duality because one cannot have one without the other. The tightrope walker could not posit the existence of the devil, without believing in a God, or some other source of good and salvation which stands opposed to the devil/evil. 15

hassen sie mich noch."21 Zarathustra, like the philosopher, seeks to turn people's minds, changing the way they look at and evaluate things, but is met with contempt instead of praise. Thus, there is also the risk of physical harm which comes with creation and overcoming. 22

Risk is not solely involved in Zarathustra's enterprise of teaching the overman and expounding the philosophy of overcoming, but risk is also intimately involved in both the creation of and maintenance of spirituality.23 Kierkegaard once spoke on this issue in terms of faith in his Concluding Unscientific Postscript in the following manner;

"Without risk there is no faith. Faith is precisely the contradiction between the infinite passion of the individual's inwardness and the objective uncertainty. Ifl am incapable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe."24 As far as Nietzsche is concerned, there is only the individual, and he who chooses to transcend man and the all-too human has "faith" only in the "objective" certainty that there is a better way to live, and that an overman is needed to lead people along this path towards better lives.

21 "They do not understand me: I am not the mouth for these ears ... they look at me and even laugh: and as they laugh they even hate me." Kaufmann. Zarathustra. Book I, prologue§ 5. 22 Also, one of the obvious representation of this is Jesus. 23 In this scene with the tight-rope walkers, I think the abyss represents the will towards nothingness because it is always a risk that in trying to overcome, we will weary and stop trying to master life, having no goals. 24 Soren Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript trans., Walter Lowrie and David F. Swenson (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1941) 178-79. In Kierkegaard, there is also this tension between opposites that we see in Nietzsche. 16

The biblical prophets underwent hardships, because listening to and carrying out the word of God was most definitely a risk, and Zarathustra faced risks and hardship such as the prophets did in the form of a spiritual and physical separation from the majority of people and also even the threat of bodily harm: Zarathustra was laughed at when he proclaimed the overman for the people did not understand his message, and the prophets' message was also not fully embraced by the people whence it was spoken. The prophets performed miraculous feats driven by the divine, while Zarathustra stakes his claim, conversely, on the death of God.

Oh My God is Dead!: The Significance of Irrelevance

The death of God is of paramount importance to the discussion of the religious content of Nietzsche's writing, and this death is primarily an issue of irrelevance, meaning that he died because people no longer thought of him as essential in their lives, and this sentiment is expressed in Nietzsche's Gay Science in the Madman.

In this particular aphorism, the death of God is spoken of in the form of a madman telling a crowd of non-believers that God is dead and that humans have killed him. The beginning of the aphorism reads; "Haven't you heard of that madman who in the bright morning lit a lantern and ran around the marketplace crying incessantly, 'I'm looking for

God! I'm looking for God," with someone in the crowd responding, "Has he not been lost then ... Or is he in hiding? ... Has he gone to the sea? Emigrated ?"25 This exchange bears a striking resemblance to Elijah's contest with the prophets of Baal in the Hebrew

25 Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science ed., Bernard Williams, trans., Josefine Nauckhoff (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001) § 125. 17

Scriptures. In this contest, the prophets of Baal prepared a bull to offer to Baal without fire and so did Elijah, both leaving it to their respective gods to provide the fire. The prophets of Baal cried, "Oh Baal, hear us!" but they received no answer, with Elijah, after a great deal of time, sarcastically replying, "Cry aloud, for he is a god; either he is meditating, or he is busy, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is sleeping and must be awakened."26 Here, as in the case of the madman, if something is not manifest and cannot even become manifest when you incessantly call on it, or look for it in broad daylight, then it must be of no real consequence and of no real potency.

1 Giving a contemporary example, Abraham Joshua Heschel analyzed the state of 20 h century religion much as Nietzsche did in his evaluation of the death of God, but in a way as to bring religion back into people's lives. Alan T. Levenson summarizes Heschel's view of the going under ofreligion as, "Religion declined not because it was refuted, but because it became irrelevant, dull, oppressive, insipid ... faith is simply replaced by creed, worship by habit."27 What Heschel is pointing out, unlike Nietzsche, is that religion has so little relevancy in people's lives because they are focusing on the wrong aspects of it: the ritual and prayer.

Although prayer and ritual are a part of religion, they are not the most important aspects of religion, but rather what Heschel called depth theology which is not "a preoccupation with the dogma, the content of believing" but, "is the act of believing, its

26 I Kings 18: 26-27. New King James version. 27 Alan T. Levenson, Modern Jewish Thinkers: An Introduction (New Jersey: Jason Aronson inc., 2000). 258. 18

purpose being to explore the depth of faith, the substratum out of which belief arises. "28

Instead of exploring the depths of faith, Nietzsche explores the depths of humanity qua humanity as it exists on earth, extracting this religious principle-the principle of the exploration of the depths of humanity and life-- from its God-related, supernatural context, making it more relevant to the progress of humanity.

Lastly, the death of God could be seen as stemming from indebtedness. In the Gay

Science, Nietzsche speaks thus of the relationship between God and sacrifice:

Then, during the moral epoch of mankind, one sacrificed to one's god one's own strongest instincts, one's own 'nature' ... Finally-what remained to be sacrificed? ... didn't one have to sacrifice God himself and, from cruelty against oneself, worship the stone, stupidity, gravity, fate, the nothing? To sacrifice God for the nothing-this paradoxical mystery of the final cruelty was reserved for the generation that is now coming up: all of us already know something ofthis.29

God met his death, killed by being the sacrificial lamb for a debt, for human beings gradually sacrificed more and more till naught was left but God himself. Now, after this, nothing is what is left. This could connect Heschel to Nietzsche because in case of both thinkers, people are focusing on the outer trappings of religion and spirituality; with

Heschel the ritual and formal aspects of religion and with Nietzsche the idols that are erected in effigy, and not what goes behind it and puts it all into motion-God-therefore meaning is lost. 30 Thus, in the case of both thinkers, people need to change the focus of their attention.

28 Ibid, 268. 29 Nietzsche. Gay Science. Book I,§ 39. 30 In the Gay Science Nietzsche says the following which is pertinent to this sentence in paragraph 108; "God is dead; but given the way people are, there may still for millennia be caves in which they show his shadow-And we-we must still defeat his shadow as well." Nietzsche. Gay Science. This sentiment is also present at the end of 19

The effect of the death of God is given to us in the fourth part of Zarathustra through the caricature of the Pope. Here, the Pope is wandering through the forest, lost, physically as well as spiritually, because he no longer has a master, when he runs into

Zarathustra who asks him ifhe knows God is dead, with the Pope replies;" 'Du sagst es,' antwortete der alte Mann betrtibt. 'Und ich diente diesem alten Gotte bis zu seiner letzten

Stunde. Nun aber bin ich ausser Dienst, ohne Herrn, und doch nicht frei, auch keine

Stunde mehr lustig, es sei den in Erinnerungen. "'31 It is here that Zarathustra explains how God died, asking the Pope, "du weisst, wie er starb? Ist es wahr, was man spricht,

Nietzsche gives us a very complicated explanation for the death of God, with pity strangling God when he saw that man hung from the cross, and he could not bear this. At the heart of this assertion is one of the most well-known, and beloved by the devout,

Biblical passages, John 3: 16; " For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life."33 It is the human incarnation of the divine, the man Jesus Christ who hung on the cross, thus Jesus

Zarathustra when Zarathustra comes back to his cave and finds the crowd assembled worshipping the ass, being recalcitrant. 31 "'As you say,' replied the old man sadly. 'And I served that old god until his last hour. But now I am retired, without a master, and yet not free, nor cheerful except in my memories." Kaufmann. Zarathustra. Book IV, "Retired." 32 "You know how he died? It is true what they say, that pity strangled him, that he saw how man hung from the cross and that he could not bear it, that love of man became his hell, and in the end his death? Ibid, Book IV, "Retired." 33 New King James Version. 20

serves as the ultimate sacrifice, standing in for and representing all of humanity.34 The loss of God's son is what strangled him, for God had also sacrificed the best in himself.

Where pity comes in is that God could not overcome his grief for man (represented by his son), or himself, meaning God no longer created, but was stagnant and thus lost value in the lives of humanity. Since God could not overcome himself, he is rendered useless, infertile, and uninspiring because the essence of life is in constant reevaluation, overcoming, and God simply could not see past himself, his love, which limits the efficacy of him and his teachings; thus this became his hell. Zarathustra, conversely, can see past himself, and he looks towards higher men and the overman.

The Pope replies to Zarathustra in agreement, but without understanding

Zarathustra's teachings and aims. The Pope concurs with Zarathustra, assessing that God has become, "alt und weich und milrbe und mitleidig, einem Grossvater ahnlicher als einem Yater, am ahnlichsten aber einer wackeligen alten Grossmuter."35 Yet, we have to remember whom the Pope is seeking, for it is none other than Zarathustra himself: "Da entschloss sich mein Herz,

34 Remember Nietzsche's remarks from the Gay Science about man sacrificing the best in him for God. 35 "old and soft and mellow and pitying, more like a grandfather than a father, but most like a shaky old grandmother." Kaufmann. Zarathustra. Book IV, "Retired." 36"my heart decided that I should seek another man, the most pious of all those who do not believe in god-I should seek Zarathustra!" Ibid, Book IV, "Retired." 21

gespitzen Ohren; ' 0 Zarathustra, du bist frommer als du glaubst, mit einem solchen

Unglauben! Irgendein Gott in dir bekehrte dich zu deiner Gottlosigkeit. Ist es nicht deine

Frommigkeit selber, die dich nicht mehr an einen Gott glauben lasst?"'37

These are indeed strong remarks by the Pope, but they stem from a misunderstanding of Zarathustra's teaching. I believe Nietzsche is, through the Pope, simply toying with the reader. We have a Pope, the authority on religion, the embodiment of religion, ausserdienst, seeking Zarathustra and calling him pious: this is ridiculous. It is ridiculous because it shows that the Pope has no idea what piety is, and it certainly is silly to think of someone serving something that does not exist trying to tell someone else what it is to serve and be pious.38 What Nietzsche is trying to tell us here is that the whole structure-language and practices-that accompany traditional religion need to be done away with.

Furthermore, when the Pope says that some God in him must have converted him to his godlessness, one automatically thinks of Socrates' daimon. I think this is deliberate on behalf of Nietzsche because the daimonion is negative, it kept Socrates from doing things, which is exactly how Nietzsche and Zarathustra view God: as something that hinders, part of the spirit of gravity. When the Pope utters these words, it only proves

37"'What is this I hear?' Said the old pope at this point, pricking up his ears. 'O Zarathustra, with such disbelief you are more pious than you believe. Some god in you37 must have converted you to your godlessness. Is it not your piety that no longer lets you believe in god?'" Ibid, Book IV, "Retired." 38 Maybe this example would be clearer. We all know those people who have horrible relationship skills, and are always being dumped and, in general, these people are those who think they know how to woo the opposite sex, but when it comes down to it, they have no clue what they are doing. Nevertheless, in spite of their proven ineffectiveness, they still insist on dispensing with advice. Thus, it is most evident to those of us who see more clearly that their advice is faulty, consequently we do not listen to them. 22

how much he doesn't understand Zarathustra and his teachings; he is still hindered and under the spell of the old God, because if he did understand, he would not venture to mention any type of supernatural being, whether it be a god, or a demon, in reference to

Zarathustra. The Pope being recalcitrant at the end of the book by worshipping the ass further evidences this: the Pope does not understand that Zarathustra wants nothing of worship or idols or even exemplary figures such as himself. All there is is the deed, overcoming, and nothing else, which makes the spiritual or religious nature of

Zarathustra a completely reevaluated formulation of what it is to be religious or spiritual, with Nietzsche resisting these labels at every point because they are so easily misinterpreted in the old, Godly ways.

Bad Air Bad Air!: The Genealogy of Morals and the Re-evaluation of Values

It is difficult to write on the perils of God without explicating the benefits of some of the principles which support this regime. I have already mentioned a reevaluation of ideas, where they are taken out of their familiar context and placed into new, stranger ones which serve different purposes. In the Genealogy ofMorals, we have a picture of what this reevaluation entails, and how it can be used to develop the human spirit. Thus, what we end up having is the notion that certain principles, as will be introduced, such as slave morality, the bad conscience, and the ascetic ideal, the principles that lie underneath the concept of God, can be both detrimental and beneficial depending on the context in which they are used.

The origin of these "detrimental" values stems from the master and slave morality which is expressed in the first two essays of the Genealogy. The master morality is that of 23

what he calls the blond beasts, or those who improve society, the creators of values, and this group was interested in themselves, life being all about power-these are the roving hoards of a distant past. This group defines what is good by what it itself embodies, and not in comparison to some other group, in this case the slaves. Thus, what they consider bad is the low, the common, the plebian, or in other words, the slaves. However, "while every noble morality develops from a triumphant affirmation of itself, slave morality", contrastingly, "from the outset says No to what is 'outside,' what is 'different.' What is

'not itself; and this is not a creative deed."39 For the slaves, their morality is purely a reaction to the masters, where the self is only affirmed as opposed to something else, and this is not creative for this very reason of being a reaction to something outward-this is what is called ressentiment, or more simply, the need to direct one's view outward instead of inward.40

Moreover, for the slaves, the masters are evil. Nietzsche writes; "But it is not the same concept of 'good': one should ask rather precisely who is 'evil' in the sense of morality of ressentiment. The answer, in all strictness, is: precisely the 'good man' or the other morality, precisely the noble, powerful man, the ruler."41 Thus, with slave morality,

39 Nietzsche. Genealogy. First Essay,§ 10. Also, there is a aphorism 260 in Beyond Good and Evil describes the master and slave morality, I think, better than the Genealogy, but is considerably long so I will not quote it here. Instead I will offer a citation with pages numbers. Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, trans Walter Kaufmann (Vintage Books: New York, 1989). 205 (master), 207 (slave). 40 To clarify, the masters define the self qua self, but the slaves define the self and who they are qua what is other, the masters. Hence, for the masters, seeing the slaves is an affect of who they are. 41 Nietzsche. Genealogy. First Essay, § 11. 24

values are changed and inverted. What is good for the slaves is being weak, meek, humility, and caring about others.

Here, one can already see the roots of modern values, it being clear that slave morality won the struggle with master morality. The slaves turn their views inwards because they cannot physically revolt, for they are too weak, so in order that this does not consume and destroy them, they create an imaginary revenge, with the help of the priestly class-that of heaven and hell, and those who abuse them, the masters, will go here after life is finished to be punished. 42 Additionally, slave morality is detrimental because it denies what is fundamental to life, dooming us to a life of mediocrity.

Moving forward in time, we can see how Christianity is the offspring of slave morality because it was spawned out of the need for the slaves to justify their position in society. What furthermore makes slave morality so dangerous is that strength cannot express itself as strength, with this suppression of strength being the hallmark of modern morality, but Nietzsche thinks these two things cannot be separated because the action or deed expresses everything; "But there is no such substratum; there is no 'being' behind doing, effecting, becoming; 'the doer' is merely a fiction added to the deed-the deed is everything."43 Accordingly, slave morality and the Christianity that goes along with it are diseases or sicknesses. This leaves the question of how this sickness and other sicknesses, such as the bad conscience, which I will presently consider, can be "cured." What also comes up here is that if Judaeo-Christian morality is a sickness, then what is health?

42 This comes from the help of the priestly class, which is also opposed to the masters. 43 Nietzsche. Genealogy. First Essay,§ 13. 25

In the second essay of the Genealogy, Nietzsche deals with man in society, and the things that come from this- the one God, which originates from the masters bad conscience.44 The difference between man[kind] in society as opposed to when it lived in roving groups is that within society it has to display more self control, which affects the masters more than the slaves. The more successful this society becomes, the more it feels indebted to its ancestors, and over time, these ancestors become gods. Eventually, these multiple gods become one God-the Christian God, which culminates in the ultimate feeling of indebtedness. Here, religion is like it is today, a means of self conquest, and this is perfect for man living in society because people automatically feel guilty which makes them good, docile citizens out of the psychological need to conquer the self.

Now, the current that runs through all of this-slave morality, guilt, and religions- is the human need to dominate something, and if you cannot impose your will on something else, then you dominate yourself-this is the bad conscience. 45 What comes from this is the fact that Nietzsche thinks that the essence of life is in expression, and especially expression of the will: the will to power. For, in the third part of Zarathustra,

Zarathustra proclaims, "O meine Brilder, ein frischer Brause-Wind kommt Zarathustra allen Weg-Milden ... Wollen befreit: denn Wollen ist Schaffen: so lehre ich. Und nur

44 However, the masters do not create the God on their own, they have some help from the slaves. For information about the slaves and their part in the bad conscience, direct your attention to the end of aphorism 17 of the second essay in the Genealogy. 45 The origins of this are in the creditor-debtor relationship. This is basically the principle that what does not express itself outward will inward. Specifically, Nietzsche says. "All instincts that do not discharge themselves outwardly turn inward." Nietzsche. Genealogy. Second Essay,§ 16. 26

zum Schaffen sollt ihr lernen! "46 So, the essence of the healthy will is in creation, and just like Jesus has disciples so does Zarathustra, both seeking to empower those who will listen, but with one giving people a false sense of security and the other liberating.

Nietzsche's view is opposed to modern life where we live in reactivity47 to external conditions-our life is an inner adaptation to external conditions-which means that we do not, as Zarathustra encourages us to, create because we are always hiding behind something. Since we do not create, life stands still and becomes stale, mediocre, and ephemeral.

The "cure" to this is actually to utilize the bad conscience to overcome, meaning that we use it to figure out what is unnatural, namely restraint, being humble, meek, belief in

God or gods. Thus, instead of seeing life as ascetic-life as a bridge to the afterlife-life is a bridge to itself. Here we have a case similar to that of Kierkegaard, but instead of transcending this world and gaining it back at the same time, being in relation to God as the knight of faith does, we transcend this life with life, making stronger ties between us and our only true nature, the will [to power], which exists here on earth, within us.

Hence, what Nietzsche does is take the basic Christian concept of overcoming, and directs it strictly to this life instead of applying it to what he thinks is an escape from this life and living it-slave morality, bad conscience.

What is interesting here is that the turning of the bad conscience purges us of potentially harmful ideals through the questioning of the self and everything else that

46 "O my brothers, like a fresh roaring wind Zarathustra comes to all who are weary of the way ... to will liberates, for to will is to create: thus I teach. And you shall learn solely in order to create." Kaufmann. Zarathustra. Book III, "On Old and New Tablets," §16. 47 For specific examples, see Nietzsche's Uses and Abuses ofHistory. 27

goes into the construction of the self, such as religion, law, and culture. Here, Nietzsche is saying that life can in itself, life qua life, be fulfilling as long as we, not God, not religion, and not even science, make our own way, not looking to these other things as the driving forces behind our lives.

This life affirming, and readiness to take on obstacles, is very much a part of what the will is said to be in Zarathustra. David B. Allison supports this notion saying, "In

Zarathustra, the will is most often conceived in extremely vital and dynamic terms: as a general strength of character, as a force of one's intellect and instinct, the courage to confront adversity and overcome resistance and obstacles to one's considered objectives."48 For example, one of the first things that comes to mind in the third part of

Zarathustra, besides eternal recurrence, is the "hardening" of Zarathustra which is present throughout the entirety of this [third] section. In section 29 of "On Old and New

Tablets" Zarathustra asks:

"'Warum so hart!' sprach zum Diamanten einst die Klichen-Kohle; 'sind wir denn nicht Nah-Verwandte?' Warum so weich? 0 meine Bruder, also frage ich euch: seid ihr denn nicht-meine Bruder." Warum so weich, so weichend und nachgebend? Warum ist so viel Leugnung, Verleugung in eurem Herzen? So wenig Schicksal in euerem Blicke? Und wollt ihr nicht Schicksal sein und Unerbittliche: wie konntet ihr einst mit mir-schaffen? Und wenn euer Harte nicht blitzen und scheiden und zerschneinden will: wie konntet ihr einst mit mir-schaffen? Die Schaffenden nfunlich sind hart. Und Seligkeit muss es euch dtinken, euer Hand auf Jahrtausende zu schreiben wie auf Erz,--harter als Erz. Ganz hart ist allein das Edelste. Diese neu Tafel, o meine Bruder, stelle ich tiber euch: werdet hart! 49

48 David B. Allison, Reading the New Nietzsche (New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publications, 2001) 120. 49 "Why so hard? The kitchen coal once said to the diamond. After all, are we not close kin? Why so soft? 0 my brothers, thus I ask you: are you not after all my brothers? Why so soft, so pliant and yielding? Why is there so much denial, self-denial, in your hearts? So little destiny is your eyes? And if you do not want to be destinies and inexorable ones, how can you triumph with me? And if your hardness does not wish to flash out and cut through, how can you one day create with me? For creators are hard. 28

Zarathustra here is speaking to the reader, calling him or her out, asking them to create, with the prerequisite for this being things like striving, discipline, and self- affirmation through the will-becoming hard. These tasks of discipline and creation are embodied in Zarathusrta's metamorphoses which is a process of spiritual development.

The stages are camel, lion, and child.

Stages of the Spirit: The Camel, Lion, and the Child

The first stage is that of the camel who takes on a load or a burden. This spirit asks,

"Was ist schwer? ... so kniet er nieder, dem Kamele gleich, und will gut beladen sein.

Was ist das Schwerste, ihr Helden? So fragt der tragsame Geist, dass ich es auf mich nehme und meiner Starke froh werde."50 Here, we can also see a glimpse of the religious because one of the most salient images in Christianity is taking on the burden of the sin of humanity by Christ, so although Nietzsche derides Christianity, he does believe some of its principles can be beneficial within the right context. This is Zarathustra when he went up into the mountains for the ten years before the book began. After the camel has

And it must seem blessedness to you to impress your hand on millennial as on wax, Blessedness to write the will of the millennia as on bronze-harder than bronze, nobler than bronze. Only the noblest is altogether hard. This new tablet, 0 my brothers, I place over you: become hard!" Kaufmann. Zarathustra. Book III, "On Old and New Tablets," § 29. Here, it is also important to remember the tightrope walker who plunged to his death because he held the above mentioned characteristics of being soft, pliant and yielding. 50 "What is difficult? ... and kneels down like a camel wanting to be well loaded. What is most difficult, 0 heroes, asks the spirit that would bear much, that I may take it upon myself and exult in my strength?" Ibid, Book I, "On the Three Metamorphoses." 29

taken on its burden, it speeds off into the desert, which I take to mean somewhere that he can be alone, away from the noise of society, such as a mountain.51

The second metamorphosis is that of the lion, and the lion confronts its adversaries.

The lion "Seinen letzten Herrn sucht er hier: Feind will er ihm werden und seinem letzen

Gotte, um Sieg will er mit dem grossen Drachen ringen.Welches ist der grosse Drache, den der Geist nicht mehr Herr und Gott heissen mag? ' Du sollst' heist der grosse Drache.

Aber der Geist des Lowen sagt, 'ich will."'52 Thus the lion gives a life affirming 'yes', turning down the life denying principles that impede the will. What is important here is that the lion has knowledge of previous models or norms, and it needs to have this knowledge for it could not truthfully say 'no' if it did not have knowledge of what it was saying no to. 53 The lion is the brute force that is needed to confront and track-down the prey of 'thou shalt.' Additionally, the lion is the courage that the will has to have in order to confront and surmount obstacles.

Concerning the lion, I view the Genealogy ofMorals as a representation of this second metamorphosis because, just like with the lion and confrontation, one cannot truthfully say yes or no to something if one does not first give an account of the phenomena in question. In the Genealogy, Nietzsche gives us an account, exposing the

51 This contrasts to Socrates who, in order to gain knowledge, primarily stayed in the city. See Phaedrus. 52 "seeks out his last master: he wants to fight him and his last god; for ultimate victory he wants to fight with the great dragon. Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? 'Thou shalt' is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, 'I will.' 'Thou shalt' lies his way, sparkling like gold." Kaufmann. Zarathustra. Book I, "On the Three Metamorphoses." 53 Someone could say no to something they have no knowledge of, but it is more productive when they know what they are saying no to because they can point out the origins, causes, and falsities in what they are analyzing. 30

roots and origins of morality, and this account is needed in order to discern what needs to be confronted and, in his case, overcome. This account also confronts these traditional ideas because it shows us the darker side of humanity, taking things such as the bad conscience, showing how it can be detrimental, and how it can be overcome by turning in on itself. Nietzsche's project here takes significant amounts of not only historical and literary knowledge, but of courage also. However, as I think the point Nietzsche is trying to convey through Zarathustra and his lion, is that this is not a reckless courage to speak out against something, because anyone can simply be opposed to a religion or set of moral values, but it is a courage honed by discipline, and moreover the type of discipline that seeks the truth in exposition of the whole of human moral existence. Reckless courage would be, for example, speaking out against something just to be a "rebel", or being opposed to something on purely reactionary bases, without having taken the time to consider the particularities. The courage which accompanies the lion, contrastingly, is honed; it has its enemy in its crosshairs, it has learned and carefully considered its ways and movements.

Lastly, there is the child which symbolizes new beginnings and creation. Zarathustra calls it a "first movement," which makes one think that this is the beginning of creation.

When we think about children, we think of something that simply does without any humiliation or reserve and something that is concerned solely with navigating its own life. Zarathustra says that this is a spirit which "seinen Willen will nun der Geist, seine

Welt gewinnt sich der Weltverlorene."54 This point is especially powerful because it is

54 "wills his own will, and he who had been lost to the world now conquerors his own world." Kaufmann. Zarathustra. Book I, "On the three Metamorphoses." 31

exactly children that Zarathustra is looking for at the end of the work (at the end of the fourth part), after the lion has roared, he thinks his children are near: "Wohlan! Der Lowe kam, meine Kinder sind nahe, Zarathustra ward reif, meine Stunde kam:--Dies ist mein

Morgen, mein Tag hebt an: heraufnun, herauf, du grosser Mittag!" 55 Thus, just like a new religion came with the birth of a baby, the birth of a new means for striving and humanity comes with making the spirit as a child: the end is just the beginning.

Here, more about how the child and how it is involved with the camel and creation must be explained. This is given by Zarathustra in a section in the third part titled "On the

Spirit of Gravity." Here, the language, as Kaufmann points out, is metaphorical, with gravity being a metaphor for the weight of convention, which is represented by the camel, with the bird representing the baby who soars above this convention and creates, thus, putting it above or beyond good and evil. Furthermore, the person who is to become a creator takes on the burden, confronting it, making something for himself, and then asks,

'"wo ist [der] eure?' so antwortete ich denen, welche mich' nach dem Wege' fragten.

Den Weg namlich-den gibt es nicht!"56 Hence, Zarathustra does not desire disciples, but there is irony here, because he is much himself a prophet.

55 "Well then! The lion came, my children are near, Zarathustra has ripened, my hour has come: this is my morning, my day is breaking: rise now, rise, thou great noon!"Ibid, Book IV, "The Sign." 56"This is my way; where is yours?-thus I answered those who asked me 'the way.' For the way-that does not exist." Ibid, Book III, "On the Spirit of Gravity,"§ 3. Additionally, in "On Gift Giving Virtue", paragraph 3, in part one Zarathustra pushes his followers away, saying, "You are my believers-but what matter all believers? You had not yet sought yourselves: and you found me. Thus do all believers; therefore, all faith amounts to so little. Now I bid you lose me and find yourselves; and only when you denied me will I return to you." Kaufmann. Zarathustra. Book I, "On the Gift-Giving Virtue," § 3. This, in my opinion, is similar to the crucifixion where Peter denies Christ three times, Jesus dies, and then returns, being a payment for the sins of mankind. 32

This proclamation of the notion that there is no one way to becoming a creator and overcoming is a sentiment present in Eastern religion. For example, in engaged

Buddhism there are many ways of development and the role of the specific religion is to make one more mindful of her actions and how they effect their own development, others, and the natural world around them. Hence, in the development of the self, one should not solely confine the self to one particular religious belief or set of beliefs because if this happens, then one is limiting oneself, and this also plays into Nietzsche's notion of how the development of the self is constantly in progress or in flux. 57 This is the idea of which

Gandhi speaks when he says that we must listen to people because no one has the whole truth; rather, we all have pieces of it. Hence, just like with Nietzsche, this development is very personal and only you can find "the way," because "the way" is your way, only being meaningful because you found it. 58 In comparison, the overman would hold a similar function the religion because both show us what is possible, 59 being a type of general guide, but do not give us "the way."

Yet, despite the similarities between Nietzsche and the small slice of Eastern thought I have presented here, Nietzsche would most likely not agree with the assertion that we all have pieces of the truth. Rather, as is represented by the camel in the metamorphoses, he would reiterate that one needs first to learn so as to make one cognizant, and not ignorant, of what needs to be overcome and how one should go about

57 This citation is for this sentence as well as the one above it. Kenneth Kraft. "Engaged Buddhism: An introduction" in The Path ofCompassion: Writings on Socially Engaged Buddhism. F. Eppsteiner (ed.),1988. xv. 58 This notion is also present in Kierkegaard's letters. 59 Kaufmann. Zarathustra. 262. 33

doing this. Those who, for example, mocked Zarathustra when he pronounced the overman were not cognizant of the state of what lies behind the curtain called "reality," which means that all Zarathustra could learn from them by listening to them is how humanity is in error; not necessarily any part of a cohesive truth.

Thus Nietzsche gives us what humanity is, and then gives us, in the form of the overman, an idea of what it can become. However the overman and what it stands for is not new in the tradition of a new religion with a figure such as Jesus because human beings cannot ever become Jesus.60 In the Gay Science, Nietzsche makes a proclamation through the madman that human beings must transcend, filling the emptiness which is left by the death of God, and become Gods themselves:

God is dead! God remains dead! ... How can we console ourselves ... With what water could we clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what holy games will we have to invent for ourselves? Is the magnitude of this deed not too great for us? Do we not ourselves have to become gods merely to appear worthy of it? There was never a greater deed -and whoever is born after us will on account of this deed belong to a higher history than all history up to now! 61

Those who themselves become like gods will hold the key to the advancement of human beings because they will create: they will create a new meaning. In a sense, we have to "rise to the occasion" and fill the void left by God to prove to ourselves how we are alive and how we control our own lives. When and if this overcoming occurs, it will

60 That is, human beings can never reach the divine status of Jesus, despite the fact that he tells his disciples that they can perform feats such as healing if they only come to him and God, having faith in them. See Mark 11:21-27; Matthew 21:21; John 14:12. The passage from John captures the sentiment of the other passages and reads as follows; "Most assuredly, I say unto you, he who believes in Me, the works that I [Jesus] do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father." King James Version. 61 Nietzsche. Gay Science. § 125. 34

be such a great deed because the will will be able to express itself to its fullest; strength can express itself as strength through the overcoming of God himself.

Eternal Return to Nowhere: A Philosophy of Existence

Lastly, but most definitely not last in terms of importance and religious or spiritual import, is the enigmatic62 concept of eternal recurrence. I chose to do this last because it is the culmination of all forces, including the will, which pan out the same way each time eternal recurrence occurs, or, in the words of Zarathustra, " Ich komme wieder, mit dieser

Sonne, mit dieser Erde ... nicht zu einem neuen Leben oder beseren Leben oder ahnlichen Leben:--ich komme ewig wieder zu diesem gleichen und selbigen Leben, im

Grossten und auch im Kleinsten."63 What I think is occurring here is that Nietzsche is alluding to the fact that things such as the bad conscience, Christianity, slave morality, good, bad, evil, joy, sorrow and so on will always exist, and are indeed necessary for existence, for there could be no overcoming without something(s) to overcome: each of these things are all a part of this great, maybe even, cosmic force. Thus, we should have it as a goal for our lives to wish, like the overman will, to be completely at ease with this idea.

To expand, eternal recurrence represents the idea that we cannot, not matter how

62 Eternal recurrence is mentioned very few times in Zarathustra and it is not exactly clear how Nietzsche wants the reader to do with the doctrine in terms of the larger project of his philosophy. Here, I will just speak on the possible religious implications of the doctrine as he gives it in Zarathustra. 63 "I come again, with this sun, with this earth ... not to a new life or a better life or a similar life: I come back eternally to this same, selfsame life, in what is greatest and smallest" Kaufmann. Zarathustra. Book III, "The Convalescent," §2. He also speaks of this in section two of "On the vision and the Riddle" and at the end of § 2 in "The stillest Hour." 35

hard we may try, escape the world of meaning, and it is for this reason that we must follow the current of life--0vercoming. Overcoming is the ultimate manifestation of life and the way it is to be lived, and this is a part of the circle of life where both good and bad things occur, but what matters is that you do not grow weak, but meet life and everything it has to offer with a positive attitude, remembering these things too shall pass.

When we accept eternal recurrence and live life to its fullest, we are taking responsibility for our actions, being critical of how we treat others as well as the environment around us. Hence, with recurrence, we have Nietzsche's call-to-arms; it is imperative that we strive to become better human beings, or we are doomed to a life a mediocrity, being privy to the destruction of the self as well as the earth. Indeed, presently we are feeling the reverberations of Nietzsche's advice to stay true to the earth in the form of global warming and climate change; is it only when disaster strikes will we finally take responsibility for our actions? What the doctrine of eternal recurrence should do is motivate us to live in a way where we can have an amor fati or love of [our] fate, a love that is felt in the perpetuation of the earth through a community of human beings who live everyday in a manner that they could will it for eternity.

Zarathustra presents the complexity of Nietzsche's philosophy in a metaphorical form which is filled with religious allusions, imagery, and concepts despite the fact

Nietzsche spends a great amount of space in this and other works deriding religion. The reason he uses religious imagery is that he realized that some of the central religious tenets such as overcoming, discipline, transcendence, and guilt are not, in themselves,

"good" or "bad,'' but what makes these things harmful and stifling is in their application, which is what I think the Genealogy adds to Zarathustra. The strength of Zarathustra is 36

that it can be read by anyone, and they can take away meaning from this highly personal book by Nietzsche, and yet it may be so personal that it was written for no one other than

Nietzsche himself, describing his intimate journey of the spirit. However, with

Zarathustra being of a personal nature for Nietzsche, he is doing exactly what he gives us an injunction to do which is to inspect the self, but no matter what we may do, always carry a hammer. Hence, Nietzsche has reclaimed his throne in Zarathustra, his path, his life, and that is, concerning spirituality or the religious, is all that matters, for we still have to do this for ourselves. CHAPTER2

BEHOLD: THE MOVEMENT OF THE BIRTH OF THE COOL

Bist du eine neue Kraft und ein neues Recht? Eine erste Bewegung? Ein aus sich rollendes Rad? Kannst du auch Sterne zwingen, dass sie um dich drehen?64 --Nietzsche, Also Sprach Zatahustra

In the previous chapter the spiritual nature of Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra was detailed with special attention given to how Nietzsche uses Judeo-Christian themes and images to overcome and eclipse these very unhealthy ways of looking at the world, its meaning, and events. There is not only a biblical affinity in the prose and structure of the text, but in the very character of Zarathustra who undeniably shares many character traits with Jesus. One would think because Nietzsche clearly shows contempt for the Christian religion this sentiment would also be shared for its founder, Jesus. However, this interpretation of Nietzsche's portrayal of

Jesus, I think, is at best naive for such a complicated work and man. Rather, we should look at his thoughts on Jesus that are manifested in Zarathustra as a critique on the progression of thought and learning towards the ends of achieving something greater, and what is endemic to this is not only the critical evaluation of others, but also of the self; it is only through conflict between the old and the new, when one stands on the edges of the abyss that is the future, that creation begins.

Nietzsche's relationship to Jesus must be viewed as a dialogue between old and nascent ideals which are still seeking to separate themselves from the old. Another one of these prominent struggles is with Socrates. In this chapter, I will detail Nietzsche's discourse on

Socrates towards the end of preparing for the chapter on Jesus and Zarathustra. I choose this

64"Are you a new strength and a new right? A first movement? A self-propelled wheel? Can you compel the very stars to revolve around you?" From "On the Way of the Creator" in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Kaufmann. Zarathustra. Book I. 37 38

indirect method as opposed to presently writing on Jesus in order to demonstrate

Nietzsche's complex view of health which includes the integration of seemingly incongruous parts-the Apollonian and Dionysian. The former is represented by none other than the illustrious Socrates, upon whose shoulders Nietzsche places the blame for the death of Greek Tragedy, an art which embodied both the Apollonian and Dionysian.

Socrates brought about the ruin of Greek tragedy through his over-emphasis on rational, scientific thinking, however, it is in this very emphasis that allows the growth and regeneration of the arts through acting as a reminder of a hole that needs to be filled.

Here, thusly, we can see the transformation of something detrimental into something positive through, as was shown in the last chapter in speaking on utilizing the bad conscience to find out what one lacks, a similar introspective movement. However, in this chapter, I will specifically focus on the movement of the spirit from sickness to health and the role negation as well as recognition play within it, arguing that Nietzsche's apparent bellicose words towards Socrates represent a movement of the spirit where

Socrates' thoughts are eclipsed, but in the same movement embraced.

Hegel: Aufhebung and Growth through Negation

The theoretical presupposition that is present in this critique, whether intentionally or otherwise, is the Hegelian concept of Aufhebung, a term which I presently have the inglorious honor to concisely render in at least a somewhat intelligible, and not too painful, manner. 65 The term literally means to "lift up," but also means to "cancel" and to

"preserve." This cancellation and simultaneous preservation is generally represented by

65 I leave this term untranslated due to there being no suitable term in English. 39

the dialectical triad of thesis, antithesis, which would be the negation or canceling of the thesis, and negation-of-the-negation.

More specifically, in the movement of the dialectical triad ideas or concepts are taken and considered, and from the tension between them both ideas are at the same time subsumed in and superseded by a newer, larger concept which contains elements of both ideas, hence comes the "preservation" aspect of Aufhebung. The result of this method is both the "sounding out" of false ideals as well as the preservation of whatever truth may therein lie. 66 This process or movement is represented in the form of Hegel's master-slave discussion, which deals with self consciousness, in the Phenomenology ofthe Spirit, where consciousness moves to self-consciousness through recognition of and by the other in a fight to the death, both consciousnesses are then lifted up, being subsumed in, and at the same time, superseded by a higher form of consciousness.

Hegel's master-slave deals with self-consciousness which begins in opposition and through the dialectical process-thesis, antithesis, synthesis-becomes cooperation, thus there is no longer any master-slave distinction. What is noteworthy here is that we are conscious of ourselves through recognition and acknowledgement by others. In seeking this recognition, there is a struggle (to the death, very exciting) in which, power (over the other) as well as recognition, is sought, with the outcome being decided by who risks the most, confronting death: go big or go home! This struggle results in the victor, s/he who

66 Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Hegel: Selections ed., M.J. Inwood (New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1989) 4. Nietzsche mentions in his Twilight ofthe Idols or How one Philosophizes with the Hammer, using the hammer as a metaphor for philosophy, that philosophy should be used as a tool to critique its own ideas and thoughts in order to find their merit, whether they are "hollow" or no longer sufficient for the healthy advancement of mankind. 40

risks their life, becoming the master and the loser, the one who held back, the slave who serves the master-the former independent, the latter dependent. Yet, in this relationship, there comes a switch where the slave becomes independent because the slave works, while the master enjoys the fruits of the slave's labor, becoming lazy; hence, the slave creates, and it is this creative movement that is of importance because it fuels progression. Now, the masters realize the newfound skill of the slaves, ands/he realizes that this skill will mutually benefit both of them, so they enter into cooperative enterprises, i.e like those between buyer and seller; thus, the "masters" recognize the

"slaves" as equals. 67

The idea of dialectical movement assumes prominence in Nietzsche, as is seen in his

Genealogy which was detailed in the last chapter. However, here, I will remind the reader of Nietzsche's master-slave discussion, its applications to Christianity, and how it specifically applies to the dialectical triads of Hegel. If it is remembered, with the slaves being in bondage they become creative and invert the value system, letting weakness be king and strength become the pauper. Thus, through both groups wanting recognition

(thesis) from the other, there comes opposition/contradiction (antithesis), with one group becoming subservient, slaves, and the other dominant, masters, both becoming self-aware through the recognition of the other. However, at the same time the slave also surpasses the master by re-evaluating values, creating new eventually Christian values (negation- of-the-negation) via the "masterly" urge to dominate and also, most likely, out of/ear of the master: in this re-evaluation, the slaves negate the values of the masters. Hence,

67 In this instance the master/slave distinction would be obliterated, meaning there would exist neither masters nor slaves. 41

master morality and slave morality are still preserved in the new Christian morality, yet they are both superseded by the creation of this very, Christian, morality.

This differs from Hegel in that, for Hegel, the master-slave process ends in cooperation with recognition among equals, but for Nietzsche, with the triumph of

Christianity, there is no trace of equality: in terms of Nietzsche, there is only a theology that masks the slavish jealousy and inferiority in a superiority complex which, despite the fact that it says all humans are equal, denies nonbelievers of any salvation less they begin believing, and looks down upon them as if they lack something fundamental to life. Thus this master/slave binary is recapitulated into the Christian believer/nonbeliever designation, meaning the distinctions, those between master and slave, are not completely erased but rather replaced.

Nietzsche is, moreover, adding yet another round of dialectical movement by contradicting these Christian values through, basically, holding a mirror to Christian values and explaining exactly where and what state this leaves not only the individual spirit, but the spirit writ large in society. He finds this to be antithetical to the healthy life, thus using this contradiction as the grounds for the formulation of new ways of living, which is wrought out in Zarathustra. Yet, in this text, and also in his other writings, he does not necessarily give us a new system of values to follow, but gives us this Hegelian dialectical process as it relates to man's spiritual progress, realizing that it is only the individual that can successfully and meaningfully carry-out this process towards an inexplicable future; hence why he is so vague on his explanation of the Obermensch. 68

68 It should also be remembered how Nietzsche thinks we can overcome the sickness of the slave morality--by turning it inside out-this is another instance of Aufhebung. 42

In terms of the critical appraisal of historical figures such as Jesus, Nietzsche is at the same time showing respect and reverence to these very same figures through pointing out what could be of some utility in their thought, in spite of the contradictions that are present. As a consequence, Nietzsche's criticism in many instances is a "healthy deconstruction" where the superficialities of a thinker's thought are done away with, but the core is preserved and yet changed; it has been aufgehoben. 69 In this chapter I intend to go through his relationship to Socrates, which is the most prominent of these relationships, providing a critique-based analysis, utilizing Ecce Homo, Gay Science, and

The Birth of Tragedy, looking at the former text, Ecce Homo, to discover how Nietzsche appraises his own writing in Zarathustra, as music, and the latter two with regard to music to give us a view of the type of mindset one should bring to reading one of his texts, arguing that the critique he gives to Socrates is endemic to this project of

Aujhebung and Nietzsche's general philosophy of overcoming and movement.

Ecce Homo, Gay Science, and the Birth of Tragedy: Nietzsche's Advise to the Reader

Ecce Homo 70 gives us Nietzsche's appraisal of his own works, which benefits the reader by providing a window into Nietzsche's mind where one can acquire key elements for deciphering his work. For example, in Ecce Homo, Nietzsche suggests, "Perhaps the

69 This is the present perfect tense of the verb Aujheben, meaning that something has been lifted up, canceled, and preserved. 70 These words were spoken by Pontius Pilot during Jesus' second trial before the Romans, they are rendered from the Latin to mean, "behold, the man." John 19:5. These words come from the Latin translation of the Bible, the Vulgate. 43

71 whole of Zarathustra may be reckoned as music ; certainly a rebirth in the art of hearing was among its preconditions."72 In order to comprehend Zarathustra, we as readers must approach the text differently than we would any other work, with this "different approach" being what Nietzsche terms a "rebirth in the art of hearing." A simple rendering of this statement would be to think that we, as human beings, need not dwell on the past, letting mistakes act as stumbling blocks, hindering our progress, rather we should, like music, move forward. However, this rabbit hole is deeper. Life, like music when one first hears it, takes a bit of getting used to; one needs to fine-tune one's ear, cultivate a re-birth of hearing, so the different textures and melodies that compose music can be appreciated. Nietzsche speaks on music in§ 334 of the Gay Science:

This is what happens to us in music: First one has to learn to hear a figure and melody at all, to detect and distinguish it, isolate it and delimit it as a separate life. It requires some exertion and good will to tolerate it in spite of its strangeness, to be patient with its appearance and expression, and kindhearted about its oddity. Finally there comes a moment where we are used to it, when we wait for it, when we sense we should miss it if it were missing; and now it continues to compel and enchant us relentlessly until we have become its humble and emaptured lovers who desire nothing better from the world that it and only it. 73

The ramification for reading Nietzsche is that we must be patient with his strange style; it is only after we have worked through something with patience, positivity, and an

71 Among the many reasons Nietzsche may have chosen to call Zarathustra a symphony, one may have been a suggestion made by his friend/secretary Peter Gast who, when asked shortly after, a little over a year in 1884, the first part of Zarathustra had been written answered, "Ich glaube beinahe unter die 'Symphonien'" (I believe [it] nearly [belongs] under the symphonies. My translation) JOrg Salaquarda. "Die Grundconception des Zarathustra" in Also Sprach Zarathusrta, ed.Volker Gerherdt. Akadamie Verlag. 2000. 70. 72 Friedrich Nietzsche, Ecce Homo ed., trans., Walter Kaufmann (New York: Vintage Books, 1967) "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" § 1. 73 Nietzsche. Gay Science. 44

open mind that we will gain anything from our endeavors. Thus, just like there is with music, there is with life a progression, a movement forward in understanding where one considers and reconsiders one's opinions; one builds on what one has learned and through this consistent process/cycle of rebirth comes the growth of a complex personality. Henceforth, we should go into and read Nietzsche's texts carefully, with minds open, critical, and receptive. This type of human being Nietzsche describes in the

Gay Science, he who is in great health:

We who are new, nameless, hard to understand; we premature births of an as yet unproved future-for a new end, we also need a new means, namely, a new health that is stronger, craftier, tougher, bolder, and more cheerful than any previous health. Anyone whose soul thirsts to experience the whole range of previous values and aspirations, to sail around all the coasts of this 'inland sea' of ideals, anyone who wants to know from the adventures of his own experience how it feels to be the discoverer or conqueror of an ideal, or to be an artist, a saint, a lawmaker, a sage, a pious man, a soothsayer, an old-style lonely diviner-any such person needs one thing above all-the great health, a health that one doesn't only have, but also acquires continually and must acquire because one gives it up again and again, and must give it up. 74

It is most noteworthy that almost all the types named above-sage, pious man, soothsayer, artist, saint-- are characters in Zarathustra, which would reinforce

Nietzsche's respect for opposing values through the recognition that they are integral in the education of the spirit: all of these-the sage, the unholy person, lawmaker, saint etc.-need to be understood in order for one to be in great health. Yet, this great health is not any one of the characteristics that are represented by the sage, saint, soothsayer etc., but an avowal to an intensity for life-boldness, strength, craftiness-which is the totality of all existence.

74 Ibid, §382. 45

Here, I think this idea of health is much akin to Hegel's analysis of truth as

Bacchanalian (Dionysian) whirl where, "no member is not drunken; and because each, as soon as it detaches itself, dissolves immediately."75 The comparison of Nietzsche's great health to Hegel's Bacchanalian whirl is appropriate because the whirl, as Yirmiyahu

Yovel points out in her commentary to Hegel's Preface, speaks to the fact that when a single part of a whole is considered in itself, it transcends itself and "passes over into others," 76 with Hegel justifying movement by asserting that this interdependence constitutes a whole, ever-changing/negating system. Nietzsche, similarly, insists on the interconnectedness of being through a survey of values and a constant motion where one

'gives up,' re-revaluates, these values again and again, thus health or the whole, is an intense cycle of constant negation as is similar to Hegel.

Nietzsche seeks to open the soul, give it depth, and this can only be done through the constant re-evaluation of all values and the role they play in one's life. This is carried out by the reader's active engagement in the text where the reader brings his or her opinions, beliefs, and insecurities and enters into a dialectical relationship where one critiques and deconstructs ideas within the self and the text which stimulates growth and regeneration.

Thus by qualifying Zarathustra as music, Nietzsche is proscribing the tools we need in order to encounter his text(s): patience mixed with unceasing scrutiny and at the same time respect for different forms of thought, tools that are also consequently those which are desirable for the navigation of life in general.

75 Hegel, "Phenomenology of the Spirit Preface" in Hegel: Selections trans., Walter Kaufmann 13 7. 76 Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel, Hegel's Preface to the Phenomenology ofthe Spirit trans., Yirmiyahu Yovel (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005) 153. 46

Later on in § 3 82 of the Gay Science Nietzsche speaks of the spirit of gravity and the soul who overcomes this, the "spirit that plays naively, i.e. not deliberately but from an overflowing abundance and power, with everything that was hitherto called holy, good, untouchable, divine."77 What we have here is soul of the Ubermensch, the great ocean that can take-in the polluted stream of man without itself becoming polluted:

Wahrlich, ein schmutziger Strom ist der Mensch. Man muss schon ein Meer sein, um einen schmutizger Strom aufnehmen zu konnen, ohne unrein zu werden. Sehe, ich lehre euch den Ubermenschen: der ist dies Meer, in ihm kann euere grosse V erachtung untergehen. 78

This soul is complex, multifaceted, a soul which has experienced a whole range of values, comprehends them, and is constantly re-evaluating them; this soul is in a constant cycle of destruction and regeneration, carrying its ashes into the mountains and then coming back down made anew. It is only a soul that has this breadth, and can will eternal recurrence that can take on opposition with laughter and go against the spirit of gravity or conventional morality, God, norms and the like. This soul, through its sheer strength, can embrace many things at once without embodying them because it places things in their proper places, recognizing the necessity of these things in man's spiritual evolution, for one always needs something to eclipse. The soul is, like music, a confluence of seemingly dissonant melodies-thoughts, values, feelings, and ideals-that come together to create a beautiful, albeit strange, sound and harmony.

77 Nietzsche.Gay Science. 78 "Verily, a polluted steam is man. One must be a sea to be able to receive a polluted stream without becoming unclean. Behold, I teach you the overman: he is this sea; in him your great contempt can go under." Kaufmann. Zarathustra. Prologue§ 3. 47

Nietzsche, Socrates, and Music: Marching to a Different Beat

Nietzsche's use of music has thus far centered on experiencing the totality of being through a constant cycle of re-birth or re-evaluation. Socrates, who is the target of many ad hominem remarks by Nietzsche, was also a music fan, recognizing music's power but

79 in a way that somewhat differs from Nietzsche. Socrates, in the Republic , tailors music to further reinforce the traits that he wants his rulers to embody, and as a result, engages in a thorough regime of censorship which is built upon the Noble Lie.

The Noble Lie stipulates that people are born with a certain metal in their souls- gold, silver, or bronze with these metals corresponding to the three classes in the city- rulers (gold), auxiliaries or army (silver), everyone else, merchants, doctors, lawyers etc

(bronze). 80 The story is a "lie" because people are told, despite this obvious hierarchy, that they are all equal, with the purpose of this being so people accept their current circumstances--what class they are in. 81 Also, additionally, people are told that, previous to their birth, they took part in a rearing program so when they were born they had all the trappings of being, for example, a soldier or a ruler; thus the, "the rulers and the soldiers" are told their "rearing and education we gave them were like dreams; they only thought they were undergoing all that was happening to them, while, in the truth, at that time they were under the earth within, being fashioned and reared themselves, and their arms and

79 This is a book written by Plato in which Socrates and his companions attempt to define justice. 80 These three designations, gold, silver, and bronze, also represent a different governing part of the soul. For example, the gold represents reason, the silver spiritedness, and the bronze appetite. 81 This same idea of acceptance of current circumstances is found in Nietzsche in terms of the birth of Christianity in slave morality. 48

other tools being crafted. When the job had been completely finished, then the earth, which is their mother, sent them up."82 This is not only told to the rulers and soldiers but to the rest of the population as well.

By telling the rulers and the soldiers they were "dreaming" during their education, and they were under the earth being made to fit their on-earth occupation, it has the effect of making people think they were predestined to do something; making individuals accept whatever role in the city they may play. When this is told to the other groups in the city, it has the effect of giving them purpose. The guardians and the auxiliaries have a clear and important purpose-to rule and guide and to protect respectively-however, so do the remainder of the citizens in the city who give it the wherewithal to function: they are, in as sense, providers. This is why the lie is "noble"; because it orders the city,

83 putting everyone in their proper place, where they should be , so the city functions harmoniously. Thus, it is through the synthesis of two seemingly dissonant ideas, nobility and lying, that harmony is created. 84

82 Plato, The Republic of Plato trans. Alan Bloom (New York: Basic Books, 1991) 414d. 83 Socrates believes that people have certain inclinations towards certain occupations, or more simply that people have certain talents, and not others. Hence they should have a occupation that fits their, to use the economic term, "comparative advantage," because the running of the city will be more efficient. 84 Wendy Doniger in her book, The Implied Spider: Politics & Theology in Myth (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998), brings up the idea that "the word myth has two very strong, very opposite meanings, depending on one's point of view: "truth" and "lie," which directly relates to the noble lie; for, from the standpoint of efficiency, there is no lie because everyone is engaged in occupations which suit their talents, facilitating the order of the city. Yet, when we look at physical myth, i.e that people were crafted under the earth and their educations were only dreams, it is most clearly a lie. 80. 49

Socrates observantly claims different harmonies speak to different parts of the soul.

Accordingly, Socrates suggests, "we'll see which are the rhythms of an orderly and courageous life, and when we have seen them, we'll compel the foot and the tune to follow the speech of such man, rather than the speech following the foot and the tune."85

Socrates uses music towards the ends of order, with order being everyone in the city being in the proper place-gold, silver, or bronze; thus, in terms of the guardians, those who will fight and lead the city, gold and silver classes, the melodies which support these things must be grafted onto the speech of the man that is good and orderly so there is a seamlessness between speech and melody, one reinforcing the other.

The Tragedy of Socrates: The Dionysian and the Apollonian

Nietzsche, in the Birth of Tragedy, takes a step back by giving a simpler explanation of the power of music in terms of the Greek tragedy. In Greek tragedy, the role of music was to unite people in a shared common experience, that of being human, and reveling in this joy in spite of the hardships one may endure. This was marked by the Dionysian, the disorderly, the frenzied:

In song and dance man exhibits himself as a member of a higher community: he has forgotten how to walk and speak, and is on the point of taking a dancing flight into the air. His gesture bespeaks enchantment. .. Man is no longer an artist, he has become a work of art: the artistic power of all nature here reveals itself in the tremors of drunkenness to the highest gratification of the Primordial Unity. 86

It is through music that barriers are broken down between people, making them cognizant of being a part of something larger, thus expressing something fundamental to

85 Plato. Republic ofPlato. 399e and 400a. 86 Friedrich Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy trans., Wm. A. Haussmann (New York: Russell & Russell Inc, 1964) § 1. 50

life, a core of being. When the Dionysian is coupled with the Apollonian, ordered beauty, reason, structure, which is best represented through physical images, like in sculpture,

Greek tragedy is produced. Now, these two elements together are necessary, being part- and-parcel to the formation of tragedy for the following reason:

Tragedy provided the Athenians with an opportunity to address the central religious problem of evil. .. the Apollonian beauty of a tragedy was one response to the question of meaning. Human life becomes meaningful through the transformation of distressing material into objects of beauty. This would be hollow comfort, however, if not for the tragedies simultaneous evocation of the Dionysian effect, the intoxication of the audience with a sense of participation in something larger than the individual self. 87

With Socrates, the purpose of music was to obtain order within the soul and in the city, with different melodies being germane to different classes, and it was not until this separation occurred that things were harmonious. Thus, people are superficially brought together through separation into different classes. Nietzsche, on the other hand, saw music as a way to bring people together through making them aware that they were apart of the stream of life, and when this was combined with the order of the Apollonian, people could fine an adequate release from the stress of life. So Nietzsche, in a way, is expanding on, and at the same time, contradicting the Socratic notion of music because he is not saying it is an either/or distinction, but it is through the combination of both order and disorder, two seemingly contradictory things, that the people of Athens were uplifted and given a satisfactory outlet to their queries about life.

Here, the notion of Aufhebung is present because it was through the synthesis of opposites-the Apollonian and Dionysian-that relief, Greek tragedy, was found.

87 Kathleen M. Higgins and Robert C. Solomon. What Nietzsche Really Said (New York: Schocken Books, 2000) 67. 51

Moreover, it was through the tension between the two ideas that brought about this release, for the Apollonian provides the principium individuationis88 or principle of individuation which gives people a sense of uniqueness where one can take pleasure in the form of something, whether it be a sculpture or a well-crafted poem; thus the

Apollonian gives us the mindset to order our lives, it is, "that measured limitation, that freedom from the wilder emotions, that philosophical calmness of the sculptor-god."89

This represents one facet of life. Yet, when reason ceases to provide answers, when reason has reached its limit and is negated, there is the Dionysian, the other part of our existence, which de-individualizes people, making them aware of being a part of not only the human race, but nature as well. Consequently, from reason and its negation, thesis, we get the Dionysian, antithesis, and from the combination or synthesis of the two, Greek tragedy is born, so it is through the tension between two opposites that we find relief because, together, they represent the totality of human existence.

Additionally, there is, whether it was intentional or not, a background dialectic occurring with Socrates in terms of music. This is evidenced by the proximity of Socrates to Nietzsche's thought concerning Socrates' role in the death of tragedy.

Naturally, since such a grave philosophical crime had been committed to no one's notice, Nietzsche was the first on the scene. However, Nietzsche did not have to stand over Socrates' grave shouting, "Confess, Confess!" because overemphasis on rational thought can be seen in the plays of Euripides:

88 This is actually Schopenhauer's term from his World as Will and Representation and is acknowledged by Nietzsche as such in the Birth. 89 Nietzsche. Birth. § 1. 52

the surprising thing has happened: when the poet recanted, his tendency has already been conquered. Dionysus had already been scared from the tragic stage, and in fact by a demonic power which spoke through Euripides. Even Euripides was, in a certain sense, only a mask: the deity that spoke through him was neither Dionysus nor Apollo, but an altogether new-born demons called Socrates. This is the new antithesis: the Dionysian and the Socratic, and the art-work of Greek tragedy was wrecked on it. What if even Euripides now seeks to comfort us by his recantation? It is on no avail: the most magnificent temple lies in ruin. 90

This is quite the assertion; that what Nietzsche calls aesthetic Socratism, which stipulates that in order for-something to be beautiful, it must be intelligible, ruined tragedy, consequently taking away the felt, unintelligible experience of the Dionysian.

What this Socratic method also represents is the fact that "only the knowing one has virtue," which translates to tragedy in the form of there being no suspense.91 This last comment by Nietzsche is extremely important to why he is so adamantly opposed to

Socrates concerning tragedy: because it was Socrates, he believes, that began scientific thinking, which amounts "the belief in the fathomableness of nature and in knowledge as a panacea."92 Thus, it was the scientific logic which seeks to systematize and categorize that killed the spirit-filled Greek art of tragedy and it is also science that will eclipse religion as Nietzsche writes in the Genealogy: it is the "hard facts," the "numbers," which imitate phenomena that speak in science, not the spirit-filled Dionysian which is centered on the shared experience that will take over, without people recognizing the need of both side-by-side. 93

90 Nietzsche. Birth. § 12. 91 Ibid, § 12. 92 Ibid, § 17. 93 Ibid, § 17. 53

It is scientific thinking that disengages us from the Dionysian and therefore others by erecting a barrier of "facts and figures" which represent phenomena, not participating or showing the, what Nietzsche calls, "universal will" which is intimately related to music:

For, as we have said, music is distinguished by that fact that it is not a copy of the phenomenon, or, more accurately, the adequate objectivity of the will, but is the direct copy of the will itself, and therefore represents the metaphysical of everything physical in the world, and the thing-in-itself of every phenomenon. We might, therefore, just as well call the world embodied music as embodied will: and this is the very reason music makes every picture, and indeed every scene of real life and of the world, at one appear with higher significance.94

Socrates is the culprit, his use of music in the Republic is towards the ends of replication. However, I do not think that Nietzsche would wholeheartedly denounce

Socrates' plan, given his inclination to think that human beings naturally have a capacity for one thing or another, and cannot be something they do not have it in them to be: man muss werden, was man ist or one must become what one is, embracing the fullness of her capabilities.95 Thus arises the question of what exactly I think Nietzsche is doing in his reference to Socratic, scientific thinking. What I think he is doing is making a diagnosis, seeing the underbelly of our all-too coveted science, and giving us a warning that we need to resurrect the mythical power of the Dionysian. What he is not doing is completely condemning science, just critiquing the emphasis of rationality over the feeling of being apart of something larger, that one cannot altogether explain, but one can sense: if we continue to rely overly much on scientific trains of thought, we will literally be missing our lives underneath the mountains of numbers and rationality, being passive participants,

94 Ibid, § 16. 95 The full title of Ecce Homo is: Ecce Homo: Wieman wird, was man ist (how one becomes what one is). This is reminiscent of Nietzsche's amor fati or love of one's fate. 54

instead of active members of the shared human experience: this is why Nietzsche so condemns Socratic thinking, for the simple fact that it takes logical/scientific thinking too far. Accordingly, Nietzsche remembers Socrates' dream in the Phaedo where Socrates, nigh upon his death, reflects on music, uttering to himself; "Perhaps there is a realm of wisdom from which the logician is banished? Perhaps art is even a necessary correlative of a supplement to science."96

This comment, aided by the good police work of Nietzsche, makes one think and rethink Socrates, his relation to, and use of music. Socrates, who is Nietzsche's champion of rational, scientific, thought, on his deathbed dreamt of music, a dream which could be interpreted to support philosophy's necessary coupling with the nonrational, felt experience of the arts which is represented in Nietzsche by the Dionysian.

Socrates' Redemption?: Cultivation of the Arts in the Phaedo

In the Phaedo, Socrates, before he answers Cebes' question that he is asking in the absence of his friend, Evenus, why is Socrates all of a sudden writing poetry, says that pain and pleasure are "like two creatures with one head," meaning that when one is

96 Nietzsche. Birth. § 14. These are Nietzsche's words imagining what Socrates must have said to himself before his death. Here, one cannot help but think of Wittgenstein and his transition from the factually-grounded rigidity of scientific language, based on truth and falsity, of the Tractatus which sought to distinguish be sense and nonsense, the former being akin to scientific language and thought, and the latter being ethical and religious thought, to the Philosophy Investigations where he adopted a less rigid view of language where meanings of words are series of family resemblances. One could also look at the two books as statements on how to understand two different aspects of life, one being the scientific and the other ways of life: art, religion, morality and the like. 55

present, the other with follow. 97 Socrates puts this in the form of a fable, saying that if

Aesop had noticed this fact, then he would have written a fable about how the god could not reconcile these two opposites so instead he united the two heads.

This is peculiar since the next topic of discussion is his recurring dreams where he is told to practice the arts, something which is done in addition to his rational philosophical investigations, consequently conveying the thought that rational pursuit of knowledge should be coupled with the arts--verse and music. Socrates explains, "The dreams were something like this: the same dream came often came to me in the past ... 'Socrates,' it said, 'practice and cultivate the arts."98 However, to Socrates' confusion, he thought he was practicing and cultivating the arts; "In the past I had imagined that it was instructing and advising me to do what I was doing . . . to practice the art of philosophy ... But now, after my trial took place ... I thought that, in case my dream was bidding me to practice this popular art ... I should ... compose poetry."99

Socrates, as evidenced by his own words, was not practicing the correct art that was demanded by his dream, hence, he must, in addition to philosophy, take up arts such as poetry and music. His dream did not instruct him to cease his philosophical inquiry, but to do something in addition to it, something that was not, necessarily, contained within his practice and cultivation of philosophy. What is exemplified by both poetry and music is the concept of a felt experience, one that is not cerebral, but in a sense mystical, for the individual words which compose poetic prose point to something beyond their mundane

97 Plato. Phaedo trans., G.M.A Grube (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1997) 60c. 98 Ibid, 60e-61 a. 99 Ibid, 61 a. 56

meaning, something words, singularly, cannot express. Paul Tillich, when speaking about religious symbols, makes the following assessment which is also a property of music and poetry; "Religious symbols do exactly the same thing as all symbols do-namely, they open up a level ofreality, which otherwise is not opened at all."100 Music has, as detailed by Nietzsche in the Birth, the same immersing function, opening up new levels of existence. Thus, it could be said that Plato's use of a dream to encourage the cultivation of the arts may not have been a recognition on his part of a gap in his philosophical thought, but rather an acknowledgement of its importance to the practice of philosophy.

With integrating the practice of the arts with philosophy, Socrates is bringing two together or reconciling two opposites. Socrates tells a story about pain and pleasure. The gods could not reconcile these opposites, so they integrated pain and pleasure into one.

However, pain and pleasure are contingent which means they are reconciled and at the same time they are not. They are reconciled because they have been brought together in the pain-pleasure continuum, yet at the same time they are not because they still occupy separate existences because the pain is still pain, meaning that it is not pleasure in the sense that one takes pleasure in pain, for Socrates says, "A man cannot have both

[pleasure and pain] at the same time." 101

Why does this matter? This matters because it is through this pain-pleasure, arts- science continuum, from the tension that exists here, that release is found. It is pain that

100 Paul Tillich, "Religious Symbols and Our Knowledge of God," Christian Scholar (September 1955). 189-197, in The Essential Tillich: An Anthology of the Writings of Paul Tillich ed., F. Forrester Church (Macmillan Publishing Company: New York, 1987) 49. One can also see the importance of having rational thought being included beside the awe, wonder, and ineffability of the religious experience in Ruldolph Otto's Idea ofthe Holy. 101 Plato. Phaedo. 60b. 57

makes the pleasure significant and pleasure that gives pain its significance, without one, what would life be? It is only in embracing both that we will ever begin to appreciate life and, in Socrates' case, be able to embrace death for the reason Socrates says, also in the

Phaedo, beginning around 64a, that the point of philosophy is preparation for death, and the soul would not be prepared if it was not aware of fullness of life which is represented by the pleasure-pain, arts-science continuums where each remains in its individuality, and yet at the same time is lifted-up and subsumed in a totality: the felt, universal experience of life. Thus we have two pairs of undoubtedly many dialectical triads, both of which move to represent something higher.

Additionally, the comment by Nietzsche in Socrates' voice also attests to the idea of

Socrates' consistent presence in Nietzsche's thought. Nietzsche mentions Socrates' dream in the midst of his ridicule because, I think, he witnessed in Plato's writing something that was the cause for a rebirth: Socrates, on his deathbed, put his finger on something desperately important to progression, not making a mere description of a dream he had, but avowing what one must do in spite of, or maybe in addition to, everything he had said. So Nietzsche, in the Birth of Tragedy, uses Socratic thought as an example of the type of thinking that when it is solely employed will result in an unhealthy life, but then uses it as a springboard into the future.

In view of the fact that science leaves a void which needs to be filled, it makes sense that Nietzsche, in the Birth of Tragedy, shows a bit reverence to Socrates by pointing out that Socrates' constant presence "necessitates a regeneration of art."102 It was the very dream where he was told to practice music that demonstrates the limits of logical

102 Nietzsche. Birth. §15. 58

knowledge, which is filled by the constant presence of art: thus is the legacy of Socrates in the eyes of Nietzsche. Yet, it is also this Socratic passion for knowledge which in tum generates art that has saved mankind from absolute pessimism and therefore destruction tendency, with making Socrates a historical turning point because of his creation of a lack which needed to be filled by art. 103

Here again, the Hegelian Aujhebung rears its head because there is most definitely an exchange between Nietzsche and Socrates, one in which Nietzsche critiques, utilizing the elements he deems negative, recycling them so that thought can progress past the stumbling blocks erected by these very ideas; thus, from the void that Socratic thinking creates comes art which in turn sits alongside science in grasping the fullness of life. In fact, Nietzsche, in Ecce Homo, recognized the Birth as "offensively Hegelian," most likely referring to the dialectical nature of the work. 104 From this, I think it would be safe to say that Nietzsche recognizes the usefulness of Socrates' thought, but this does not necessarily equate to an expression of admiration on Nietzsche's behalf, neither does it necessarily mean that he disapproves of Socrates, but what "tips-the-scales" so to speak is the fact that Nietzsche sought to imitate Socrates in his writings.

Moreover, Nietzsche did admire Socrates in that he viewed him as the first

Lebensphilosoph, philosopher of life, because he used thought to serve life and not life to serve thought, which is much in tune with his Use and Abuse ofHistory where he claims that history has utility only in its application to the present and its situations, being in this

103 Ibid, § 15, and also see "Nietzsche's Admiration for Socrates" in Walter Kaufmann, Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968) 395. 104 Kaufmann. Ecce Homo. "Birth of Tragedy"§ I. 59

case, emblematic of a trait a person who wants to grasp the fullness of life with passion should posses: they should practically use knowledge. 105 Moreover, Socrates was a person who would have rather died than let his spirit be dimmed by escaping death, hence his death was symbolic of, and a testament to, the life he lived. 106

This idea of the utility of thought and knowledge is clearly seen in the prologue to

Zarathustra in the exchange between him and the old saint who asks Zarathustra; "was willst du nun bei den Schlafenden?" to which Zarathustra answers, "Ich bringe den

Menschen ein Geschenk," which is the Ubermensch: the meaning of the earth, a new means for striving which will combat nihilism and the slave morality. 107 When we further look at his exchange, we see that the old saint calls mankind, "eine unvollkommene

Sache" or unfulfilled thing, which is indeed a correct assertion as to the status of man, thus enters Zarathustra, he who is taking his experiences from his ten years of solitude and using them to help mankind. At the end of the prologue it is the old saint that

Zarathustra remembers right after he encounters his snake and eagle; "Als Zarathustra dies gesagt hatte, gedachte er der Worte des Heiligen im Walde."108 What he remembers is the old man telling him not to go to the people, for Zarathustra speaks to his heart,

105 Kaufmann. Nietzsche: Philosopher. 96. 106 Ibid, 399. 107 "what do you now want among the sleepers" and "I bring men a gift." Kaufmann. Zarathustra. Prologue §2. 108 "When Zarathustra had said this he recalled the words of the saint in the forest." Ibid, Prologue § 10 60

saying, "Mochte ich kli.iger sein!" 109 which translates to him needing the right ears for his teaching.

This is the exact opposite of the old saint, who seeks solitude only for the purpose of worshipping God which is not using one's knowledge in a productive manner, even for the old man himself because what he is doing only has profit in death, therefore denying, saying no, to life, yet Zarathustra still leaves him to his peace without argument as to sway him. 110Thus, Zarathustra, in Nietzsche's eyes, is bringing philosophy to the people, to this end, Nietzsche writes, "Socrates would demand that one bring philosophy down to man again," 111 and is this not what the philosopher does in the cave myth, bring his insight down to man? Moreover, is this not what the Socrates of the dialogues did by being the gadfly buzzing about, corrupting the youth? Thus the adage rings true: nothing is more flattering that imitation.

In sum, Nietzsche's view of Socrates is both combative and reverential, which is completely in line with his belief that the best friendships are antagonistic, even, I guess, those with dead people. 112 This idea of antagonist relationships being the most productive

109 "That I might be wiser!" Ibid, Prologue §10. 110 Laurence Lampert in his Nietzsche's teaching: An Interpretation of Thus Spoke Zarathustra (New Haven: Yale University press, 1986) argues that he does this out of a gift-giving nature; "When the old saint responds that he maintains his solitude in order to praise God, the compassionate and gift-giving Zarathustra continues on his way, turning even his separation from the old saint into a gift to man, for he departs not as to take away from the old saint the belief that makes his solitude possible" 17. 111 Ibid, 399. 112 There is, here, a parallel to Christian Scripture, one in which Kierkegaard points out in Fear and Trembling. The passage is Luke 14:26 and reads as follows: "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." New King James Version. 61

is attested to in a lecture he gave on the pre-Platonics: "Plato seems to have received the decisive thought as to how a philosopher ought to behave toward men from the apology of Socrates: as their physician, as a gadfly on the neck of man." 113 This declaration by

Nietzsche is recognized to mean that knowledge must be eclipsed, and that one should not let one's friendship get in the way of the pursuit of knowledge, hindering one's growth. Thus, it makes sense that Zarathustra wants no followers, because the whole point of his teachings is to know thy self

113 Nietzsche also writes, in a fragment, "Socrates, to confess it frankly, is so close to me that almost always I fight against him." Kaufmann. Nietzsche: Philosopher. 398. CHAPTER3

JESUS AND ZARATHUSTRA GO TO THE MIKVEH

Jesus came and overturned the tables of the moneylenders in the Temple; overturned the currency of religious counterfeiters in an attempt to purify and redeem not only religion, but humanity. Nietzsche similarly attempts to create ein reiner Geist 114 through the catharsis that is Zarathustra, and in characteristic Nietzsche style, humbles

Christianity through myriad caricatures and general professions of malaise. The character of Zarathustra mimics Jesus in many ways and seems to be, the majority of the time, continuing this carnival of caricature. I intend, however, to argue in this chapter that, despite Nietzsche's penchant for shooting arrows at Jesus, it would be too simple to explain his bellicose nature as wholehearted condemnation. I will, thus, attempt to show that amongst Nietzsche's scathing criticisms of Jesus there exists a tension between

Nietzsche and Jesus which breeds a new health through the exposition of opposition or

Aufaebung, giving Nietzsche's relationship to Jesus a similar tone as to that with

Socrates. It is in Zarathustra that this new health which is the offspring of tension between Jesus and Nietzsche forms a spiritual Einklang, or harmony, a harmony that both exists and is affirmed through struggle.

Towards this end of proving a spiritual harmony between Nietzsche and Jesus, I will specifically compare Zarathustra and Jesus in two areas; physicians/teacher and pity. The

114 Note, this is not Nietzsche's own terminology, but my own. It means, pure spirit. 62 63

issue of a physician/teacher is a natural extension from the discussion of health in the last chapter and Jesus is often referred to as a physician and teacher in the Christian

Scriptures. I group teacher and physician together because, with both characters, the line is often blurred between the role of the physician and teacher because healing is, generally, offered through instruction. I chose the issue of pity because it was

Zarathustra's last temptation and is a major reason why he reserves such contempt for both Christianity and Jesus.

Jesus as Physician: Bringing Israel Back to God

In the last chapter health came to the fore and specifically that health is not the absence of sickness, but a determined creative resilience which strives to overcome in spite of being faced with malady. Most naturally, one should need a physician if one is sick. Jesus is mentioned a number of times in reference to a physician. For example, in

Matthew, when Jesus was asked by the Pharisees115 why he ate with sinners and tax collectors he responds, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick ... for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."116 There is no need for a physician among the healthy for they are healthy, having no maladies, but the sick need the physician in order to be[ come] healthy. In the last chapter we learned

115 This literally means "separated." The Pharisees were a group of Jews who separated themselves from those who did not observe the Jewish laws regarding ritual purity and tithing. This group had a profound influence on the Jews in Jesus' time, placing more emphasis on the minutiae of one's life, distracting people from more important issues; "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone." Matthew 23:23. Jesus, at Luke 16:14. New King James Version. 116 Matthew 9:12. New King James Version. These same words are also recounted in the Gospel of Mark 2: 17 and Luke 5 :31. 64

Nietzsche's criteria for health: patience; being critical yet recognizing utility and a learnedness that is aware of a wide-range of values. Moreover, ifit is recalled, he finds

Christian values to be unhealthy, and since Jesus is connected to this Christianity in

Zarathustra, he too, finds fault here. So, as of now, it is up to Zarathustra to be the cure for Christian values, but what about Jesus, what did he attempt to cure?

Jesus' fight is primarily to bring the people oflsrael 117 back to God from their estrangement due to sin, and to make them aware of the Kingdom of God being at hand. 118 The "Kingdom of God" 119 was often expressed in parable which emphasizes the felt, spiritual, and holistic nature, something that cannot be confined to one simple definition, being in many ways, like Nietzsche's view of health. Both thinkers seek to break the cycle of spiritual laziness that plagues man, realizing that one can only become more spiritually aware by taking the necessary steps. The basis of this is that one learns by imitation, and for both Nietzsche and Jesus, one has been imitating the wrong things,

117 Israel was the only nation that had accepted God at the time, thus God was King over Israel, however, worshippers of other gods were also allowed to worship God in addition to their deities; "Nor did the Jew demand exclusive allegiance from interested Gentiles: In the Bible, God had addressed his demand for exclusive commitment only to Israel." Paula Fredriksen. Jesus ofNazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1999) 61. This was not, however, without hopes of expansion, for example Zechariah 14:9 "And the LORD shall be King over all the earth." New King James Version. 118 I do not intend to, in any thorough manner, deal with the issue of the Kingdom of God/Heaven because this would be out of the scope of this paper. Thus I will just make general remarks about certain aspects Nietzsche disagrees with in Zarathustra and those which he is in accordance with. 119 One could also view the "Kingdom" paradoxically, meaning that it is both imminent and distant, temporal and non-temporal, both on earth and in heaven due to the power of God and faith, as demonstrated by Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling and Rudolf Otto's Das Helige or [Idea of} the Holy, which attest to the mystical power of the holy, one in which words and reason cease to function, hence letting paradoxes stand. 65

with these detrimental ideals becoming ingrained in us due to repetition, and we must break through this cycle, with Nietzsche, Zarathustra. Jesus sought to break the cycle of spiritual slumber through a return to God through a reminder of the past [Hebrew scriptures] and with the Kingdom of God, both promises of the future and reminders of the past.

Jesus comes primarily to restore, mending the past through his teaching; "Do not think I that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill." 120 Since Jesus came to fulfill, it is not necessarily who Jesus was that is at issue, rather what he did: Jesus did not want to diminish the power of the message he represents. 121 A good example of how Jesus reminds Israel of how it should be conducting itself and what is promised to those in the future are the Beatitudes which describe the criteria for those who will enter the Kingdom of God. They are as follows:

Blessed are the poor in spirit, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, For they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek For they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for the righteousness, For they shall be filled. Blessed are the merciful, For they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure at heart, For they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called the sons of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake,

120 Matthew 5: 17. New King James Version. 121 "The content of Jesus' preaching, in other words, has nothing to do with his own identity. In fact, he is so notoriously reticent on this point, silencing demons when they recognize him ... that scholars have designated the 'messianic secret' a major motif in Mark's Gospels." Fredriksen. Jesus. 28. 66

For theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 122

Those who are poor in spirit, pure at heart, merciful, and the like will be part of the

Kingdom of God/Heaven. What is exhibited here is that all of the above are in states of weakness and passivity, a passivity that will be redeemed upon entry to the Kingdom of

God/Heaven. Also, there is the empty/full designation which plays on the issue that one is not complete until one has entered the Kingdom of God/Heaven. This empty/full distinction harkens back to the metaphor of a cup "running over"123 in the Hebrew

Scriptures, with the overflow being one extreme between empty and full. With God, and in the Kingdom, however one may interpret the term, the soul will be filled with the spirit, elevating it from its current position. Thus, the Kingdom provides the spirit abundantly.

The Beatitudes also look forward to the coming Kingdom, 124 or to something that is promised, but not yet present. The phrasing of the Beatitudes places an emphasis on the future and along with Jesus' general call for repentance, it leads to a heightened concern for the future and the place of the soul within it, for no one would want to be left out of the Kingdom and the coming eschatological events that can be derived from the parables of the Kingdom in the Christian Scriptures. So, with the Beatitudes we have a situation that looks both forward and backwards at the same time, gives strength to weakness in other-worldly Kingdom. The latter is what Nietzsche takes issue with, for in the prologue

122 Matthew 5: 3-10. New King James Version. Kingdom of God and Heaven are interchangeable. 123 Psalm 23:5: "Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over." New King James Version. It is of some debate among scholars as to the temporality of the Kingdom of Heaven/God, i.e, when it is to appear, with some saying that it was at the time of Jesus, others in the future, and still others arguing that the "Kingdom" was/is contained in the words of Jesus. 67

of Zarathustra, there is a passage that has the same rhythm as the Beatitudes, yet preaches a different message. Still, what is also contained among the criticism is the very essence of the Beatitudes. The passage goes as follows:

Ich liebe die, welche nicht zu leben wissen, es sei denn als Untergehende, denn es sind die Hinlibergehenden. Ich liebe die grossen Verachtenden, weil sie die grossen Verehrenden sind und Pfeile der Sensucht nach dem anderen Ufer. Ich liebe die, welche nicht erst hinter den Stemen einen Grund suchen,unterzugehen und Opfer zu sein: sondem die sich der Erde opfem, dass die Erde einst des Ubermenschen werde .... Ich liebe den, dessen Seele sich verschwendet, der nicht Dank haben will und zurlickgibt: denn er schenkt immer und will sich nicht bewahren .... Ich liebe den, dessen Seele tibervoll ist, so dass er sich selber vergisst, und alle Dinge in ihm sind: so warden alle Dinge sein Untergang. 125

Zarathustra gives us the earth instead of heaven, juxtaposing Jesus' fullness with emptiness, so that the "fulfilled" soul is empty because it has given so much away. This type of person Zarathustra speaks of finds meaning in the earth, sacrificing himself to it in anticipation of the overman. Zarathustra also elevates those who despise because they

"long for the other shore," meaning they do not see the salvation in God, but in the negation of these very values. Moreover, I think Nietzsche is also trying to bring out the last-man nature of the Gospels by positing his Ubermensch as one who overcomes this, and not only this, but, as was stated in the last chapter and just above, is constantly giving himself up, engaging himself in the going over/under cycle. With this juxtaposition, we

125 "I love those who do not know how to live, except by going under, for they are those who cross over. I love the great despisers because they are the great reverers and arrows of longing for the other shore. I love those who do not first seek behind the stars for a reason to go under and be a sacrifice, but who sacrifice themselves for the earth, that the earth may someday become the overman's .... I love him whose soul squanders itself, who wants no thanks and returns none: for he always gives away and does not want to preserve himself .... I love him whose soul is overfull so that he forgets himself, and all things are in him: thus all things spell going under." Kaufmann. Zarathustra. Prologue §4. 68

see the necessity of the Christian values and how they come into conflict with

Zarathustra.

The image of the "cup that runneth over" from the Psalms is important for

Zarathustra because he negates it, juxtaposing fullness and emptiness. It is through this negation that we can see an affinity between Zarathustra and Jesus, for Jesus sought to negate the present and restore the past for the sake of the future, while Zarathustra negates the teachings of Jesus through imitation of the past, through the linguistic affinity above, between the Beatitudes and Zarathustra's speech from the prologue, which decidedly moves towards the future. These juxtapositions validate one another, meaning what gives them both power are their opposites, or negations, and this is why Nietzsche gives us the Beatitudes in his own language, so we can see the strengths and weaknesses in what we are opposing. Now, the future in question is not one where the spiritual cup in the Christian sense is full, but one where these values are inverted, where the wise find joy in their folly and the poor of spirit find wealth in their poverty. Both men, thus, have the future in their sights, with Nietzsche borrowing the verve and power of Jesus and turning it into a Commandment-destroying blitz, and with this blitz comes a new clarity, through the destructive movement of the soul as it understands and exceeds what it destroys.

Zarathustra as Physician/Teacher: Not Leading those who Follow

Zarathustra, too, can also be named a physician/teacher. It is clear from the prologue that he seeks to give to mankind something that he thinks it lacks, but he does not, at this point, like Jesus, seek the sick to preach to, as he does to the crowd in the prologue, but 69

rather a following of the willing. In "On the Old and New Tablets," he rebukes those world-weary souls who give up the reality of this earthly life to those of heaven, "An

Unheilbaren soll man nicht Arzt sein wollen." 126 Those who long for heaven forsake the earth, thus are not willing to follow Zarathustra' s earth-bound philosophy; therefore they are unheilbar or incurable.

Those who are incurable do not have the need for a physician because they are simply beyond his aid. It is Christians who are "incurable" as Nietzsche suggests, and one should not waste one's word upon them. In the prologue, after the tight-rope walker has fallen, Zarathustrajlees the town, going back into the mountains. If this is contrasted to

Jesus' final days where he enters Jerusalem and overturns the tables of the money changers in the Temple, it is evident that Jesus possesses more fortitude than Zarathustra.

When Jesus overturned the tables, this was a symbolic act, demonstrating his stance against ungodly priestly practices, wanting to reinstate and cleanse the role religion played in the Jews' lives: "Jesus went into the temple and began to drive out those who bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers ... Then

He taught, saying to them, 'Is it not written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations'? But you have made it a 'den ofthieves."'127 For Jesus could very well, just as Socrates, have fled the city instead of spending the Passover in a city where he most likely knew he would die. He, like Socrates, would have rather died than lost his virtue and wavered from his message. It is this very characteristic that Nietzsche admired in Socrates, as explained in the last chapter.

126 § 17; "To the incurable, one should not try to be a physician." Kaufmann. Zarathustra. 127 Mark 11: 15,17. New King James Version. 70

Yet, there is a reason for Zarathustra's flight: there is no resurrection, expiation, or redemption in death. Jesus was the sacrificial lamb for the sins of man and also, through his death, he wanted to show man how to live. 128 Zarathustra will sacrifice nothing of the sort for he seeks to overturn these very values of resurrection, expiation, and redemption, as Jesus did the table of the money changers and the corruption of the priests. Despite the fact that both seek to overturn, Zarathustra, at the same time while holding affinity to

Jes us, makes is very clear that he seeks to move forward and past the Christian religion as opposed to Jesus who came not to destroy the Law of the prophets, but to fulfill.

Since Jesus' insight looks backwards, it gives a previously established standard which to adhere to, a standard which, at the present time, was not being fully practiced.

Hence, a diagnosis of a sickness is easier to make because there was a standard that had already been established, making the role of the physician to remind the sick of the set standard of health. With Zarathustra, we have a physician who had made a diagnosis to which people are ignorant, nihilism, thus when he explains what constitutes health, it is of no avail because people do not even recognize they are sick. Zarathustra, therefore, cannot be a physician to those who still hold fast to Christianity because the people render themselves incurable by adhering to these values; they will not allow him to act as a physician and cure their disease. What Zarathustra can do is aid those who have come to him, recognizing what he has and the impending nihilism.

Zarathustra, thus, needs followers to aid. In §9 of the prologue, Zarathustra opnies,

"Gefiihrten sucht der Schaffende und nicht Leichname und auch nicht Herden und

128 Karl Jaspers notices, "Jesus confirmed his blissful way of life by the manner of his death." Karl Jaspers, Nietzsche and Christianity trans., E.B. Ashton (Chicago: H. Regnery Co., 1961) 20. 71

Glaubige." 129 If not dead bodies, or believers, or members of the un-thinking herd, what kind of Gefahrten or companions does he seek to accompany him on his journey? He seeks Mitschaffende or fellow creators. However, there are instances in Zarathustra where he explicitly rebukes even his followers and where he attests to wanting to reach all of mankind. At the end of the first part, Zarathustra preaches, "Ihr sagt, ihr galubt an

Zarathustra? Aber was liegt an Zarathustra? Ihr seid meine Glaubigen: aber was liegt an allen Glaubigen! lhr hattet euch noch nicht gesucht: da findet ihr mich. So tun alle

Glaubigen; darum ist es so wenig mit allem Glauben."130 Zarathustra questions his followers because they have not yet sought after themselves, thus reducing faith to nothing.

By rejecting his followers, Zarathustra is teaching a philosophy of self integration through the unification of a fragmented spirit. In their search for meaning, his followers, who are Zweifler or disbelievers or doubters of themselves as well as Christianity, seek

Zarathustra to make them whole, make them eins instead of zwei. Zarathustra, however, realizes that integration is only possible if one becomes an Einsamer-lonely one, plotting one's own journey. Thus, from being split and doubting, being two, through negation or rejection, two discordant parts of the self are unified into one. This is

Zarathustra's work as a physician-"Sondem lebendige Gefiihrten brauche ich, die mir

129 "Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds, and believers." Kaufmann. Zarathustra. 130 "You say you believe in Zarathustra? But what matters Zarathustra? You are my believers-but what matter all believers? You have not yet sought yourselves: and you found me. Thus do all believers; therefore all faith amounts to so little." Kaufmann. Zarathustra. "On the Gift Giving Virtue" Book I §3. 72

folgen, weil sie sich selber folgen wollen-und dorthin, wohin ich wi11" 131-a work where he inverts the biblical understanding of what a physician does, helps the sick by bringing them to him, and shows the other side of the art which rejects the seeking sick in order that they can find themselves, or a spiritual unity. Thus far, we have Zarathustra giving us a process by showing us the biblical form, then negating it, and it is the job of the reader to continue this process.

Still, Zarathustra does want to lift up those who are ignorant. In §3 of "On Old and

New Tablets" he admits, harkening back to the prologue:

Nun warte ich meiner Erlosung--, dass ich zum letzten Male zu ihnen gehe. Denn noch ein mal will ich zu den Menschen: unter ihnen will ich untergehen, sterbend will ich ihnen meine reichste Gabe geben! Der Sonne lernte ich das ab, wenn sie hinabgeht, die Uberberreiche: Gold schlittet sie da ins Meer aus unerschopflichem Reichtume,--also, das der armste Fischer noch mit goldenem Ruder rudert! 132

Zatathustra the charitable! He does desire to bring about a comprehensive consciousness raising among humanity, so that even the spiritually poor have a spiritually rich environment or a sea into which they can dip their oars, or minds. However, he knows that this is not altogether possible because people do not yet have the ears for what he is preaching. Thus, Zarathustra is a visionary in his own right, a visionary who, unlike

Jesus, who is known as the "light," comes with the lightning, destroying the Old Tablets and replacing them with, at the end of the third part, half-written New Tablets.

131 "Living Companions I need, who follow me because they want to follow themselves-wherever I want." Kaufmann. Zarathustra. Prologue §9. 132 "Now I wait for my own redemption-that I may go to them for the last time. For I want to go to me once more; under their eyes I want to go under; dying. I want to give them my richest gift. From the sun I learned this: when he goes down, overrich; he pours gold into the sea out of inexhaustible fiches, so that even the poorest fisherman still rows with golden oars." Kaufmann. Zarathustra. Book 3. 73

Jesus, however, was selective in his disciples despite the fact that his message, like that of Zarathustra's, was for everyone. The most interesting aspect of this is Jesus, much like Zarathustra, did have a sense of denial in terms of the criterion for spiritual advancement. It is well known that Jesus urged those who, "desire(s) to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." 133 Additionally, this passage clarifies Luke 14:26 which reads, "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." 134 What is implicit in both of these passages is the denial, or more appropriately, complete submission of the will towards all things other than God, whose messenger is Jesus. James G.D. Dunn, eminent New Testament scholar and former

Lightfoot Professor of Divninity at the University of Durham, U .K., writes about this denial as a sign of the urgency of Jesus' message; "One disciple (or potential disciple) is recalled as requesting, 'let me first go and bury my father'. But Jesus told him, 'Leave the

135 dead to bury their own dead. "' . This is no slight matter because, according to Jewish custom, it was a son's duty to bury his father. 136

By "dead," Jesus meant the spiritually un-enlightened or those who were not partaking in the Word. Zarathustra too has his own encounter with the dead, an encounter that holds some similarity to Jesus for he does not want to commune with the "dead," meaning the spiritually deprived and unperceiving herd. Zarathustra, in support of this

133 Mark 8:34. New King James Version. 134 New King James Version. 135 James G.D.Dunn. Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmand Publishing, 2003) 504. 136 Ibid, 504. 74

assertion avers, "Nicht reden einmal will ich wieder mit dem Volke; zu letzen Male sprach ich zum einem Toten." 137 Unlike Jesus, Zarathustra does take the time to bury his dead, which is a metaphor for him putting the herd, Christians, behind him and seeking fellow creators, harvesters, and celebrants, "Den Schaffenden, den Emtenden, den

Feiemden will ich mich zugesellen." 138

Jesus Denies his Followers: Denial, Contradiction, and the Strength of the Divine Call

Concerning Jesus, the presence of denial supports the issue of Jesus' selectivity because, if one would not deny themselves, they could not be his disciple. Jesus, analyzed by Dunn, "did issue a general call to repentance and faith ... but ... targeted specific individuals to be his disciples as such with the view of giving them more intensive teaching." 139 Is this not what Zarathustra does with his gathering at the end of the book?

Is this not what Zarathustra seeks when he leaves the town and goes into the mountains?

If we look at John 15: 1-7, we get a sense of the strong bond between Jesus and his disciples in terms of a vine and its branches:

I am the true vine, and my father the vine dresser. Every branch in Me that doesn't bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. You are already clean because of the word which I have spoke to you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branches cannot bear fruit of itself, unless you abide in Me. I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered ...

137 "Never again shall I speak to the people: for the last time I have spoken to the dead." Kaufmann. Zarathustra. Prologue §9. 138 "I shall join the creators, the harvesters, the celebrants." Ibid, Prologue §9. 139 Dunn. Jesus. 503. 75

If you abide in me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. 140

Jesus is the vine, the vine which nourishes the branches, without which the branches will wither and die. The language here speaks of trusting or abiding in Jesus, and in turn, he will abide in his disciples who will be fruitful, meaning that Jesus is connected to his disciples like branches are to a vine. This connection is a seamless whole, for the whole plant--vine, branches, and roots--is a single entity. God, prunes the branches, for even followers of Jesus are not perfect, slipping up from time to time. God also takes away those branches which are withered and dead.

Since the branches depend on the vine for nourishment, it is only through the vine, or Jesus, that one will bear fruit, fruit that is fit for a King such as God. Hence one must go through Jesus, trusting and following his teachings such as the Beatitudes, in order to be found worthy of the ultimate master, God. Further implications of this are that, without Jesus, the vine, man has no saving grace, nothing that will lead them to be fruitful, for the branches cannot bear fruit by themselves, unless they partake of Jesus.

This is a very strong statement, that it is not enough just to believe in Jesus, one must also follow him in action and in deed. If one does not do this, they lead a spiritually impoverished life.

The connection between Jesus and his disciples, thus, is one of the utmost importance because Jesus is not only physician and teacher, he is a savior. Jesus as physician/teacher is pitted against his divinity, two parts of his existence, like Nietzsche's

Dionysian and Apollonian. If one desires a reasonable account of salvation, one should

140 John 15: 1-7. New King James Version. 76

just listen to Jesus' teachings, but this will only provide a cursory instruction that points to something deeper, which is the felt experience of the Kingdom. There is, thus, as exists in the tension between Nietzsche's Dionysian and Apollonian, which leads to spiritual awareness and growth, and a tension in Jesus' words, a tension that will lead to salvation.

For example, as discussed earlier, he tells a potential disciple to forgo the burial of his father and, instead, follow him, yet Jesus also says that we should show compassion, and would the burial of one's parent not fall under this category? It is this very notion of paradox in the bible that Kierkegaard speaks of in Fear and Trembling, because

Abraham, ethically, is a cruel unloving murderer, but religiously, he demonstrates faith the likes of which the world has never seen. What makes Abraham's transcendence possible is its relationship to the divine; thus we must intuitively and inexplicably follow what the divine places in our hearts, because it is the divine which reconciles contradictions in itself, giving us both earthly rewards and heavenly salvation.

The Reconciliation of Opposites: A Higher Purpose

It can be said without hesitation that Zarathustra, too, makes contradictory remarks, such as he desires companions and at the same time does not and he wants to bring his message to mankind, then says it is not for the whole of mankind. This can lead to confusion if one does not see the larger purpose of his work, one in which is much in tune with the spirit of Jesus. Dunn, an astute New Testament scholar, makes the following remarks on the meaning of Jesus' comments on God's Kingship of the future, the

Kingdom of God/Heaven:

What precisely did Jesus mean when he spoke of God's kingship of the future? was one to which no clear answer was forthcoming. Probably the more appropriate 77

question was 'Did Jesus mean anything precisely (that is, which we today can turn into straightforward propositions) when he spoke?' A firm confidence in God and in the future as God's, expressed in the prophetic and, in some measure, apocalyptic language, is certainly evident. But to translate that language entirely into first (or twenty-first) century prose is a self-defeating task, losing far more than it purports to gain. Language which speaks to the imagination and spirit can rarely be translated into factual description without substantive loss. 141

The last two sentences of the above statement stress the mystical nature of

Christianity by touching on the power of language to point to the ineffable, an aspect which is present in Zarathustra. The course of action one should take, if we are to follow the words of Dunn, is to approach complex narrative in scripture in an unsystematic fashion. Now, emphasis on the mystical is not made at the expense of reason, rather one must realize that the religious involves the integration of the rational and the mystical, just as Nietzsche's notion of health was found to contain both Apollonian, orderly, and

Dionysian, disorderly, elements. It is for this very reason, knowing when to give a reasonable or rational account, that makes the task of interpreting the bible difficult because it, much like Zarathustra, has different tones and moods which need to be dealt with in specific ways, which may mean is some cases, as Wittgenstein brings out at the end his Tractatus, that we should pass over passages in silent recognition of the religious. 142

141 Dunn. Jesus. 489. 142 The passage referred to is the last line of his Tractatus which reads, "What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence." (Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, dartiber muss man schweigen). What this implies is that what one cannot speak of using reasonable, scientific language, one must pass over silently. Ultimately, what is meant by "silence" is that there are some issues-such as religion and art-which cannot be understood using logical-based analysis, for these particulars, another analysis must be employed. Ludwig Wittgenstein. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus trans., D.F Pears and B.F McGuinness (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1961) §7. 78

Nietzsche's writing in Zarathustra functions in a similar manner. Zarathustra's elusive musings, parables, half-thought-out formulations, and general silence on issues such as the overman and eternal recurrence are meant to be absorbed by the soul and not necessarily logically hammered out into a form. When one attempts to systematize

Nietzsche, he resists through his difficult literary style which is littered with metaphor and allusion, in an attempt to force the reader out of a learned complacency, compelling us to not only think, but to feel. This combination of thought and feeling is one of the strengths of Zarathustra because it encapsulates the gamut of human existence.

Thus, as discussed in the last chapter, we must, just like when reading the bible, adopt a new means of hearing, not hearing in the passive sense, but in the sense of taking heed to the words. Jesus' words and parables too were elusive and downright confusing to some, while clarifying to others; "Hearing Jesus ... was not a straightforward business.

The parable of the Sower certainly suggested that there would be different hearings with different results. Those who heard and responded positively were, in the event, a relatively small group." 143 This small group was his disciples, whose job was to spread the Word, "before its truth is finally revealed to all."144 Jesus' disciples, like

Zarathustra' s, were consequently privy to privileged information, information that was unknown to others, meaning, in both cases, that the power of the words were not universally adopted.

143 Dunn. Jesus. 498. The parable of the Sower is found in Luke 8: 4-15. 144 Ibid, 497. 79

The Last Temptation: Pity

Pity is, however, something that plagues both Zarathustra and Jesus, but what does

Nietzsche mean by pity [Mitleid]? The literal translation of Mitleid is to "suffer with" and it is for this very reason that Nietzsche condemned pity; because it sought out suffering in others, i.e, the imaginary revenge of slave morality or ressentiment. This all stems from the fact that slaves view suffering as bad, while Nietzsche views it as something essential to life, something that the hardest of individuals utilize in the process of overcoming.

Towards this end, Walter Kaufmann makes the following comment; "A religion that preaches pity assumes that suffering is bad ... Self-perception, however, is possible only thorough suffering, and the ultimate happiness of the man who has overcome himself does not exclude suffering."145

I wholeheartedly agree with this last assertion, and I am moving to take it a step further by claiming that, because we must view suffering as a necessity to overcoming, pity is a temptation that all who desire to become creators will face; for God faced pity, and died of it, Jesus faced pity and was nailed to the cross, and Zarathustra himself faces pity. The idea of a test is what I want to examine below, arguing that one does not know where one is positioned unless one is tested, and I in this process I will draw on midrash, the bible, and Zarathustra.

When one thinks on the theme of tests in the bible, Abraham and Job come to mind.

In both cases, loyalty to, and faith in God were tested through various means: Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son and Job underwent hideous treatment at the hands of the

145 Kaufmann. Nietzsche: Philosopher. 368. Zarathustra speaks on this in the second part of the book in a chapter titled, "On the pitying." 80

adversary, Satan, all because of a divine bet to prove the virtue of Job. What is germane to both is the theme of suffering, suffering that is not pointless, but suffering which demonstrates strength of character and resolve in faith. Yet, as many readers of these two stories have asked, if God "loves" these two men, then why the ill treatment, why the suffering, for he knows they are righteous, so why does he need to prove to Satan in the case of Job his righteousness, and why does put Abraham through such a terrifying trial when he asks him to sacrifice his son?

The answer to these questions comes in midrash where it is said concerning

Abraham, "The Lord does not test the wicked but the righteous ... R. Eleazar said: when a man possesses two cows, one strong and the other feeble, upon which does he put his yoke? Surely upon the strong one." 146 God, as well as Jesus, just like Nietzsche and his camel, seek those who are strong, those who can take-on the heavy burdens and come out changed, stronger, and invigorated, hence why he, Jesus, exercised discretion when he chose his disciples. Yet, Zarathustra differs from he whose yoke is easy and burden is light because Zarathustra does not seek to relieve people of their burdens, but, as he asserts in the prologue, help them bear them through his teaching.

Yet, if Jesus' yoke is easy and burden is light, what is the meaning of the story of

Abraham, a story which not only attests to a very Nietzschean concept of suffering and struggle, but forms the heart of three major religions? For it seems we have a contradiction or paradox on our hands, because his burden, teachings, cannot be at the same time easy to understand and adopt, and at the same time fraught with suffering. A

146 Midrash Rabbah. Vayera 55 ii. Trans., Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman and Maurice Simon, M.A (New York: Soncino Press, 1934). 483. 81

possible answer to this could be that Jesus took upon himself the burdens of man so they would not have to repeat the deeds of Abraham and, for in the Jewish tradition in a prayer on Rosh Hashanah, it is asked that the "sacrifice" of Abraham be remembered, with that particular sacrifice being used for the expiation of the sins of Israel. Now, in the Christian tradition, Paul uses this sacrifice of Abraham as the basis for the expiatory power of

Jesus' sacrifice, in other words, he uses the form of the Abrahamic sacrifice and grafts it onto Jesus. Jesus, is the lamb that bears the burden, meaning that, if one comes to him, and through him his father, one will be relieved of demonstrating Abraham-like faith.

If this is the case, then it can easily be seen why Nietzsche held contempt for Jesus because Jesus sought to lessen suffering by masking it in eternal salvation, something that cannot be achieved here on earth while one lives. Additionally, Nietzsche would claim that Jesus is pedaling a counterfeit version of faith, a version that renders any substantial spirituality impotent and even dangerous because it misplaces the emphasis of life to the otherworldly. Moreover, if we take a step back, we can see why Nietzsche said God died of pity. Jesus was the son of God, sent to pay for the sins of man, meaning that humans had such a great debt, a debt that they did not have the wherewithal to pay. In other words, God thought humans too incompetent, looking down upon them with a parent-like pity when their child is struggling to feed itself, and instead of letting them struggle, he feeds them himself; God's pity was his sacrifice of Jesus.

Both Zarathustra and Jesus, however, do not seek those who are prone to give into temptation, the weak, because for them, temptation is not a test but a way of life, for they are prone to give in without struggle. If one gives in without struggle, then there is no progress, thus the point of both these stories is one of progress and overcoming through 82

struggle and hardship. Nietzsche views pity as giving in, of giving up on life, but, nonetheless, something that need be faced if one is to overcome. Hence, just as health, for

Nietzsche, is not the absence of sickness, but rather how sickness is endured, a good, productive, spiritual life is not lived without the presence of suffering, but in and through it.

In§ 3 of the prologue, Zarathustra speaks; "Was liegt an meinem Mitleiden! Ist

Mitleid nicht das Kreuz, an das der genagelt wird, der die Menschen liebt? Aber mein

Mitleiden ist keine Kreuzigung!"147 Here, Zarathustra is connecting Jesus to the sentiment of pity by saying that Jesus was nailed on the cross of pity, meaning pity is what brought him to die for the sins of man and contrasting his pity to his own, which recognizes the place of suffering, not seeking to mask it in the name of morality and good vs. evil, the language of Christianity.

Nietzsche opines in, "Vom freien Tode" or On Free Death, that Jesus died too early, and if he had lived longer, he would have recanted his teachings:

Wahrlich, zu frilh starb jener Hebraer, den die Prediger des langsamen Todes ehren: und vielen ward es seitdem zum Verhangnis, dass er zu fri.ih starb. Noch kannte er nur Tranen und die Schwermut des Hebraers, samt dem Hasse der Guten und Gerechten-der Hebraer Jesus: da i.iberfiel ihn die Sehnsucht zum Tode. Ware er doch in der Wi.iste geblieben und feme von den Guten und Gerechten! Vielleicht hatte er leben gelemt und die Ertle lieben gelemt-und das Lachen dazu! Glaubt es mir, meine Bri.ider! Er starb zu frilh; er selber hatte seine Lehre wiederrufen, ware er bis zu meinem Alter gekommen! Edel genug war er zum Widerrufen! Aber ungereift war er noch. Unreif liebt der Jungling, und unreifhasst er auch Mensch und Ertle. Angebunden und schwer ist ihm noch Geml.it und Geistesfli.igel. 148

147 "What matters my pity? Is not pity the cross on which he is nailed who loves man? But my pity is no crucifixion." Kaufmann.Zarathustra. 148 "Verily, that Hebrew died too early whom the preachers of the slow honor; and for many it has become a calamity that he died too early. As yet he knew only tears and the melancholy of the Hebrew, and hatred the good and the just-the Hebrew Jesus: then the longing for death overcame him. Would that he had remained in the wilderness and 83

Nietzsche here, through a mix of humor and seriousness, explains the absurdity of

Jesus or that Hebrew, for it was pity that killed Jesus who saw man in such a horrible state that he had to end his pain on the cross, where his longing for death overcame him.

Jesus chose the cross instead of life because he was too childish, not understanding the world, and especially the need of man to "pay for his own sins," meaning that man's fate and future are man's own burden, not to be offset by the divine. The wings of Jesus' spirit were tied down by the spirit of gravity, convention, the good and the just, and he, Jesus, simply could not bear the load or the responsibility of letting man act and suffer on his own. What kind of example is this? One who cannot bear a burden? Surely, if one takes up one's cross and follows Jesus, then one will be giving up on humanity, falsely thinking that relief is the goal and that it is found in heaven.

If Jesus were older, wiser, he would have realized the folly in his ways, learning to laugh at his old self. This idea of maturing is present in the Christian Scriptures 1

Corinthians 13: 11 which reads, "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."149

Whether or not Nietzsche had this passage in mind when he wrote about that Hebrew, the passage from 1 Corinthians has a distinctly Nietzschean character because it attests to the inexperience of youth, something that must be put away if one is to become an adult.

far from the good and the just! Perhaps he would have learned to live and to love the earth-and laughter too! Believe me, my brothers! He died too early; he himself would have recanted his teaching, had he reached my age. Noble enough was he to recant. But he was not yet mature. Immature is the love of youth, and immature his hatred of man and earth. His mind and the wings of his spirit are still tied down and heavy" Kaufmann. Zarathustra. Book I. I49N ew K'mg James V ers10n.. 84

If we take a look at the rest of "On Free Death," we get the idea that dying at the right time is important, and Jesus, clearly, died too early. Nietzsche gives the command;

"Dass euer Sterben keine Lasterung sei auf Mensch und Erde, meine Freunde: das erbitte ich mir von dem Honig eurer Seele. In eurem Sterben soll noch euer Gesit und euer

Tugend gluhn, gleich einem Abendrot um die Erde: oder aber das Sterben ist euch geraten." 150 One's death must not, like Jesus, condemn the earth, but be a testament to it, with one's soul being a testament on how to live life that glows like a sunset around the earth. Thus, Paul may have been correct in describing Jesus' coming in terms of kairos, meaning that he came at the "right" time, but Jesus died before he could truly fulfill and utilize all of his talents, for his child-like ways forced him to give up instead of pushing through. So, what we have here is, by casting Jesus as young an immature, Nietzsche, is evoking a scriptural sentiment, 1 Corinthians, but at the same time, in the same movement, "uplifting" it to another level through insisting that one must not let death overcome them, one must always stay in the struggle.

Pity is also a danger to Zarathustra, for it is his last temptation that he has to overcome, as indicated the in the fourth part of the book in the "Cry of Distress" and the

"Ugliest Man." 151 In the "Cry of Distress," the soothsayer from the second part returns, who answers Zarathustra's question as to his final sin; '"Meine letze Sunde, die mir aufgespart blieb, weisst du wohl, wie sie heist?' 'Mitleiden!' antwortete der

150 "That your dying be no blasphemy against man and earth, my friends that I ask of the honey of your soul. In your dying, your spirit and virtue should still glow like a sunset around the earth: else your dying has turned out badly." Kaufmann. Zarathustra. Book I. 151 Pity is spoken of in a number of places in the book, but I will only deal with the above mentioned examples. 85

Wahrsager." 152 Pity is the last hurdle Zarathustra must clear, because pity is the greatest temptation, for it was the one that led that Hebrew to the cross. This fact is evidence for whom Zarathustra feels pity, the ugliest man who is the man who killed God.

Indeed, the ugliest man is a pitiful sight, for after Zarathustra is seized with pity, the ugliest man grips his robes in attempts to detain him, begging, "Stay!" Do not pass by!" 153 (Bleib! Geh nicht voriiber!). He also warns Zarathustra against his own pity as well as having pity for those who will assemble at Zarathustra's cave, to which

Zarathustra, calmly and without pity, thanking him for his advice and inviting him to his cave; "du warntest mich var deinem Wege. Zurn Danke daftir lobe ich dir den meinen.

Siehe, dart hinauf liegt die Hole Zarathustras ... Und rede zuerst ... mit meinen Tieren!

Das stoltzeste Tier und das klilgste Tier-

Ratgeber sein!"154

Zarathustra, in this situation with the ugliest man, I believe is showing us the product of overcoming the type of pity that killed Jesus, replacing it with a sentiment of

Mitgefuhl, or compassion or sympathy. Zarathustra could have easily, as the ugliest man attests, stopped and given him alms, but he did not, instead, Zarathusra listened to him, then inviting him to his cave, and offering him advice. Pity would have dictated that

Zarathustra should have looked down upon the ugliest man in his spiritually destitute state and it must be remembered that it was well within the power of Zarathustra to

152 '"My final sin, which has been saved up for me-do you know what it is?' 'Pity!' answered the soothsayer." Kaufmann. Zarathustra. Book IV. 153 Ibid, "Ugliest Man." Book IV. 154 "And first speak to ... my animals. The proudest animals and the wisest animal­ they should be the right counselors for the two of us." Ibid, "Ugliest Man" Book IV. 86

reproach the ugliest man, thus his restraint, demonstrates that strength is not opportunism, but knowing when it is appropriate to do what. In this situation, Zarathustra is strong, and his is being sympathetic from the point of view of strength, not as in a slave morality where one is gracious only because they are not able to act otherwise. Zarathustra, then, is giving us an alternative to pity, with a sympathy that acts out of strength and a perception of a spiritual lack or shortcoming, or in other words, sensitivity.

What lies at the core of his remarks to the ugliest man is this: "Du aussengestossener, der du dich selber ausstiessest, du willst nicht unter Menschen und

Menschen-Mitleid wohnen? Wohlan, so tu's, mir gleich! So lernst du auch von mir; nur der Tater lernt." 155 It is, the doer who learns and progress, a comment which opposes the belief in a deity or some other supernatural power. This comment is especially pertinent to pity because it is pity that leads to the self-negating ideal that is Christianity, for we must remember what Zarathustra says about faith--all faith amounts to little because people seek the heavens before they seek themselves. Once this is discovered, this power of pity to make the mountains of faith into a mole hill, a scene where life becomes meaningless, trivial ensues. Zarathustra, from this spiritual dearth, asks the ugliest man if he wants to live among men and their pity, and if he does not, then he has to make the effort, following Zarathustra' s dancing and uplifting laughter.

If one is to follow Zarathusta, then one needs to have an idea, much like the ugliest man, of the quality of the present spiritual situation and its nihilism. Moreover, one must know whence it came, Jesus and Christianity, in order for one to recognize where to go

155 "You self-exiled exile, would you not live among men and men's pity? Well then! Do as I do. Thus you also learn from me; only the doer learns." Kaufmann. "Ugliest man." 87

next. Consequently, Jesus and Christianity form the Gegenteil or opposite of

Zarathustra's words and teachings, and opposition which is necessary for overcoming. It is this opposition and overcoming movement that Nietzsche wants us to feel in

Zarathustra, and he does this through giving the tone of his work biblical proportions, so that we can, as is the case with music, start tapping our feet and nodding our heads, eventually being able to adopt our own new beat, not restoring the old music of the past. CONCLUSION

This paper has attempted to clarify the complex spirituality and religiosity that is contained within Friedrich Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra. It began in the first chapter with a general overview of the idea of overcoming, placing importance on this factor as a crucial part of the soul's development, with all of this being communicated through the biblical imagery backdrop of Zarathustra. Here, a digression was made to expound on his ideas on the slave morality and how this is overcome through introspection, or using the slave mentality to identify where one is lacking. This is a key movement in Nietzsche because it displayed how negativity can be used to progress the soul, with the only caveat being that it must be used in the right manner.

The second chapter, through the incorporation of Aujhebung, added to this narrative by highlighting not only the use of negation, but the importance of negation in the development of the spirit, and more specifically how two seemingly dissonant ideas-the

Apollonian and Dionysian-need to be present so the soul can be healthy. Thus, it is not just any overcoming that will do, but that which has a certain style, a certain character and attitude that makes the most of both the rational-logical scientific element of humanity as well as its propensity for awe, feeling, and abandon. Socrates was

Nietzsche's apparent adversary in this chapter, embodying only the scientific half of our guideline for health.

However, it is this very lack that forces the regeneration of the Dionysian and the 88 89

cultivation of the arts, acting as a reminder of how important it actually is. Thus, it is not a matter of simply stating that Nietzsche disliked Socrates, rather one must turn to see what he did with Socrates' thought, because when one steps back and looks at the whole picture, one can see first-hand the crucial negation plays in the spiritual progress.

Negation helps foster progress thorough its recognition of the opposing thought or idea, an idea even if consumed and or superceded, becomes part of the new identity. In

Zarathustra, this type of movement is expressed through the biblical imagery that

Nietzsche employs, and also, more specifically, in one particular parallel which is evident in the work; Zarathustra's similarities to Jesus.

The third chapter ventured to prove that the issue of asserting Nietzsche's dislike of

Jesus is indeed a difficult task, for, as was the case with Socrates, he still recognizes the usefulness of his thought towards some higher end. It is, however, while reading

Zarathustra, hard to not conclude that Nietzsche does not take Jesus seriously. Instead of surmising Nietzsche's opinion towards Jesus and Christianity as downright contemptible in Zarathustra, a more appropriate decision would be to term it "uneasy." Uneasy would be a more apt term because we see through the character of Zarathustra his ongoing battle to create something for himself and also his battle to separate himself from this very

Jesus and Christianity that he so easily caricatures. What we are privy to as readers is that we can feel the tension, sometimes bordering on uncertainty, and insecurity on behalf of

Zarathustra; we can feel his shudders before the abyss. It is exactly at these points where creativity springs forth from the strong soul, for strength does not necessarily confer immunity to things such as uncertainty, but strength knows how to push through and overcome them. Here, Zarathustra's words take on beatific proportions. 90

It would, however, be a disservice to Nietzsche if one thought the key to

understanding Zarathustra and any of the ideas contained therein was pure strength or

power. Strength, as rendered in this thesis, involves a sensitivity of self as well as the

world around oneself. What is engendered in this sensitivity is action, one must use the

knowledge one has to progress and overcome. Hence, strength is not only awareness, but

also an awareness-centered doing; it is taking one's Schicksal or fate in one's own hands,

resisting the lazy herd mentality which has hitherto characterized Western existence. It is

having the force of soul to ask the most difficult questions and face the most earth­

shattering answers and it is also having the humility to realize our limits and what is off

limits and no longer a possibility.

Nietzsche's Zarathustra surely doesn't provide a lack of questions, for his infectious

writing makes its way under our skin and, no matter where one finds oneself in this

writing, neutrality is not a possible outcome. Hence, Zarathustra can truly boast being a

book for all. At the same time, however, its content provides different levels of meaning,

and at its deepest levels it is surely an abyss, something that we stare into and stares right

back at us. It is here, in encountering the urgency, the existential angst, that we find the

book speaking to no one but us, facing the possibility that we did not comprehend the

work in its entirety, meaning that the book was written for no one, or those not yet

named, or those to come in the future. In the end, Thus Spoke Zarathustra is about one thing with many manifestations: you. BIBLIOGRAPHY

The Holy Bible. New King James Version.

Allison, David B .. Reading the New Nietzsche. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publications, 2001.

Doniger, Wendy. The Implied Spider: Politics & Theology in Myth. New York: Columbia University Press, 1998.

Dunn., James G.D .. Jesus Remembered. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmand Publishing, 2003.

Fredriksen, Paula. Jesus ofNazareth, King ofthe Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence ofChristianity. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1999.

Freedman, Rabbi Dr. H. and Maurice Simon, M.A., trans .. Midrash Rabbah. New York: Soncino Press, 1934.

Goethe, Johan Wolfgang. Faust. Translated by Carl R. Mueller. Hanover: Smith and Krauss, 2004.

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich and M. J. Inwood. Hegel: Selections. New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1989.

Hegel, Georg Friedrich Wilhelm. Hegel's Preface to the Phenomenology ofthe Spirit. Translated by Yirmiyahu Yovel. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005.

Higgins, Kathleen M. and Robert C. Solomon. What Nietzsche Really Said. New York: Schocken Books, 2000.

Jaspers, Karl. Nietzsche and Christianity. Translated by E.B. Ashton. Chicago: H. Regnery Co., 1961.

Kaufmann, Walter. Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968. 91 92

Kierkegaard, Soren. Concluding Unscientific Postscript. Translated by Walter Lowrie and David F. Swenson. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1941.

Kraft, Keeneth. "Engaged Buddhism: An introduction." In The Path of Compassion: Writings on Socially Engaged Buddhism, Edited by F. Eppsteiner. 1988.

Lampert, Laurence. Nietzsche's teaching: An Interpretation of Thus Spoke Zarathustra. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986.

Levenson, Alan T .. Modern Jewish Thinkers: An Introduction. New Jersey: Jason Aronson inc., 2000.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Birth a/Tragedy. Translated by Wm. A. Haussmann. New York: Russell & Russell Inc, 1964.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil. Translated by Walter Kaufmann. Vintage Books: New York, 1989.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Ecce Homo. Edited and translated by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Vintage Books, 1967.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Genealogy ofMorals. Edited and Translated by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Vintage Books, 1967.

Nietzsche, Friedrich, and Walter Kaufmann. The Portable Nietzsche. New York: Penguin Books, 1982.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Gay Science. Edited by Bernard Williams and translated by Josefine Nauckhoff. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Plato. The Republic ofPlato. Translated by Alan Bloom. New York: Basic Books, 1991.

Plato. Phaedo. Translated by G.M.A Grube. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1997.

Salaquarda, JOrg. "Die Grundconception des Zarathustra." In Also Sprach Zarathusrta, Edited by Volker Gerherdt. Akadamie Verlag. 2000.

Schleiermacher, Friedrich. The Christian Faith. Edited by. H.R. Mackintosh and J.S. Stewart. Edinburgh: T &T Clark, 1999. 93

Tillich, Paul. The Essential Tillich: An Anthology ofthe Writings ofPaul Tillich. Edited by F. Forrester Church. Macmillan Publishing Company: New York, 1987.

Tillich, Paul. Systematic Theology Vol.I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Translated by D.F Pears and B.F McGuinness. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1961.