The Magician: Thus Spake Zarathustra

For those who are familiar with the story of Thus Spake Zarathustra, this is by far my favorite of all the chapters. But I am confused,

In his work Twilight of the Idols Nietzsche presented the argument that all words are lies…ways upon which the orators slave the listeners (I believe this is why he chose to speak in poetry, since if you must speak in lies why shouldn’t it be beautiful lies), but here we see that Zarathustra belittles the Magician for speaking in lies to make him seem like a great man. This seems like a contradiction. Why should the Overman look on to the Magician with disdain if the Magician deceives the weak?


65. The Magician

WHEN however Zarathustra had gone round a rock, then saw he on the

same path, not far below him, a man who threw his limbs about like a

maniac, and at last tumbled to the ground on his belly. “Halt!” said

then Zarathustra to his heart, "he there must surely be the higher

man, from him came that dreadful cry of distress,- I will see if I can

help him." When, however, he ran to the spot where the man lay on

the ground, he found a trembling old man with fixed eyes; and in spite

of all Zarathustra’s efforts to lift him and set him again on his

feet, it was all in vain. The unfortunate one, also, did not seem to

notice that some one was beside him; on the contrary, he continually

looked around with moving gestures, like one forsaken and isolated

from all the world. At last, however, after much trembling, and

convulsion, and curling-himself-up, he began to lament thus:

Who warm’th me, who lov’th me still?

Give ardent fingers!

Give heartening charcoal-warmers!

Prone, outstretched, trembling,

Like him, half dead and cold, whose feet one warm’th-

And shaken, ah! by unfamiliar fevers,

Shivering with sharpened, icy-cold frost-arrows,

By thee pursued, my fancy!

Ineffable! Recondite! Sore-frightening!

Thou huntsman 'hind the cloud-banks!

Now lightning-struck by thee,

Thou mocking eye that me in darkness watcheth:

-Thus do I lie,

Bend myself, twist myself, convulsed

With all eternal torture,

And smitten

By thee, cruellest huntsman,

Thou unfamiliar- God…

Smite deeper!

Smite yet once more!

Pierce through and rend my heart!

What mean’th this torture

With dull, indented arrows?

Why look’st thou hither,

Of human pain not weary,

With mischief-loving, godly flash-glances?

Not murder wilt thou,

But torture, torture?

For why- me torture,

Thou mischief-loving, unfamiliar God?-

Ha! Ha!

Thou stealest nigh

In midnight’s gloomy hour?..

What wilt thou?

Speak!

Thou crowdst me, pressest-

Ha! now far too closely!

Thou hearst me breathing,

Thou o’erhearst my heart,

Thou ever jealous one!

-Of what, pray, ever jealous?

Off! Off!

For why the ladder?

Wouldst thou get in?

To heart in-clamber?

To mine own secretest

Conceptions in-clamber?

Shameless one! Thou unknown one!- Thief!

What seekst thou by thy stealing?

What seekst thou by thy hearkening?

What seekst thou by thy torturing?

Thou torturer!

Thou- hangman-God!

Or shall I, as the mastiffs do,

Roll me before thee?

And cringing, enraptured, frantical,

My tail friendly- waggle!

In vain!

Goad further!

Cruellest goader!

No dog- thy game just am I,

Cruellest huntsman!

Thy proudest of captives,

Thou robber 'hind the cloud-banks…

Speak finally!

Thou lightning-veiled one! Thou unknown one! Speak!

What wilt thou, highway-ambusher, from- me?

What wilt thou, unfamiliar- God?

What?

Ransom-gold?

How much of ransom-gold?

Solicit much- that bid’th my pride!

And be concise- that bid’th mine other pride!

Ha! Ha!

Me- wantst thou? me?

-Entire?..

Ha! Ha!

And torturest me, fool that thou art,

Dead-torturest quite my pride?

Give love to me- who warm’th me still?

Who lov’th me still?-

Give ardent fingers

Give heartening charcoal-warmers,

Give me, the lonesomest,

The ice (ah! seven-fold frozen ice

For very enemies,

For foes, doth make one thirst).

Give, yield to me,

Cruellest foe,

-Thyself!- -

Away!

There fled he surely,

My final, only comrade,

My greatest foe,

Mine unfamiliar-

My hangman-God!..

-Nay!

Come thou back!

With all of thy great tortures!

To me the last of lonesome ones,

Oh, come thou back!

All my hot tears in streamlets trickle

Their course to thee!

And all my final hearty fervour-

Up-glow’th to thee!

Oh, come thou back,

Mine unfamiliar God! my pain!

My final bliss!

-Here, however, Zarathustra could no longer restrain himself; he

took his staff and struck the wailer with all his might. "Stop

this," cried he to him with wrathful laughter, "stop this, thou

stage-player! Thou false coiner! Thou liar from the very heart! I know

thee well!

I will soon make warm legs to thee, thou evil magician: I know

well how- to make it hot for such as thou!"

-“Leave off,” said the old man, and sprang up from the ground,

"strike me no more, O Zarathustra! I did it only for amusement!

That kind of thing belongeth to mine art. Thee thyself, I wanted

to put to the proof when I gave this performance. And verily, thou

hast well detected me!

But thou thyself- hast given me no small proof of thyself: thou

art hard, thou wise Zarathustra! Hard strikest thou with thy ‘truths,’

thy cudgel forceth from me- this truth!"

-“Flatter not,” answered Zarathustra, still excited and frowning,

"thou stage-player from the heart! Thou art false: why speakest

thou- of truth!

Thou peacock of peacocks, thou sea of vanity; what didst thou

represent before me, thou evil magician; whom was I meant to believe

in when thou wailedst in such wise?"

“The penitent in spirit,” said the old man, "it was him- I

represented; thou thyself once devisedst this expression-

-The poet and magician who at last turneth his spirit against

himself, the transformed one who freezeth to death by his bad

science and conscience.

And just acknowledge it: it was long, O Zarathustra, before thou

discoveredst my trick and lie! Thou believedst in my distress when

thou heldest my head with both thy hands,-

-I heard thee lament 'we have loved him too little, loved him too

little!’ Because I so far deceived thee, my wickedness rejoiced in

me."

“Thou mayest have deceived subtler ones than I,” said Zarathustra

sternly. "I am not on my guard against deceivers; I have to be without

precaution: so willeth my lot.

Thou, however,- must deceive: so far do I know thee! Thou must

ever be equivocal, trivocal, quadrivocal, and quinquivocal! Even

what thou hast now confessed, is not nearly true enough nor false

enough for me!

Thou bad false coiner, how couldst thou do otherwise! Thy very

malady wouldst thou whitewash if thou showed thyself naked to thy

physician.

Thus didst thou whitewash thy lie before me when thou saidst: 'I did

so only for amusement!’ There was also seriousness therein, thou art

something of a penitent-in-spirit!

I divine thee well: thou hast become the enchanter of all the world;

but for thyself thou hast no lie or artifice left,- thou art

disenchanted to thyself!

Thou hast reaped disgust as thy one truth. No word in thee is any

longer genuine, but thy mouth is so: that is to say, the disgust

that cleaveth unto thy mouth."- -

-“Who art thou at all!” cried here the old magician with defiant

voice, "who dareth to speak thus unto me, the greatest man now

living?"- and a green flash shot from his eye at Zarathustra. But

immediately after he changed, and said sadly:

"O Zarathustra, I am weary of it, I am disgusted with mine arts, I

am not great, why do I dissemble! But thou knowest it well- I sought

for greatness!

A great man I wanted to appear, and persuaded many; but the lie hath

been beyond my power. On it do I collapse.

O Zarathustra, everything is a lie in me; but that I collapse-

this my collapsing is genuine!"-

“It honoureth thee,” said Zarathustra gloomily, looking down with

sidelong glance, "it honoureth thee that thou soughtest for greatness,

but it betrayeth thee also. Thou art not great.

Thou bad old magician, that is the best and the honestest thing I

honour in thee, that thou hast become weary of thyself, and hast

expressed it: ‘I am not great.’

Therein do I honour thee as a penitent-in-spirit, and although

only for the twinkling of an eye, in that one moment wast thou-

genuine.

But tell me, what seekest thou here in my forests and rocks? And

if thou hast put thyself in my way, what proof of me wouldst thou

have?-

-Wherein didst thou put me to the test?"

Thus spake Zarathustra, and his eyes sparkled. But the old

magician kept silence for a while; then said he: "Did I put thee to

the test? I- seek only.

O Zarathustra, I seek a genuine one, a right one, a simple one, an

unequivocal one, a man of perfect honesty, a vessel of wisdom, a saint

of knowledge, a great man!

Knowest thou it not, O Zarathustra? I seek Zarathustra."

-And here there arose a long silence between them: Zarathustra,

however, became profoundly absorbed in thought, so that he shut his

eyes. But afterwards coming back to the situation, he grasped the hand

of the magician, and said, full of politeness and policy:

"Well! Up thither leadeth the way, there is the cave of Zarathustra.

In it mayest thou seek him whom thou wouldst fain find.

And ask counsel of mine animals, mine eagle and my serpent: they

shall help thee to seek. My cave however is large.

I myself, to be sure- I have as yet seen no great man. That which is

great, the acutest eye is at present insensible to it. It is the

kingdom of the populace.

Many a one have I found who stretched and inflated himself, and

the people cried: ‘Behold; a great man!’ But what good do all

bellows do! The wind cometh out at last.

At last bursteth the frog which hath inflated itself too long:

then cometh out the wind. To prick a swollen one in the belly, I

call good pastime. Hear that, ye boys!

Our today is of the popular: who still knoweth what is great and

what is small! Who could there seek successfully for greatness! A fool

only: it succeedeth with fools.

Thou seekest for great men, thou strange fool? Who taught that to

thee? Is today the time for it? Oh, thou bad seeker, why dost thou-

tempt me?"- -

Thus spake Zarathustra, comforted in his heart, and went laughing on

his way.

His disdain for the Magician is not caused by fooling of the weak, but for his masquerading as the great (the overman. Indeed, Zarathustra first believes “he there must surely be the higher man”). He is pleased to see that the magician DESIRES greatness, and is also willing to admit he is NOT great. He is not fond of his cowardice towards “going under”. It has nothing to do with the deception of the masses, per se.

He pretends to be an “ascetic of the spirit”-- and I think this is the big giveaway that reveals the Magician as the philosopher. He torments himself with his own thoughts, and pretends to be a holder of truth and secrets (but all his theories amount to are cheap parlor tricks). In this way philosophers, and institutional philosophy itself, mimics the priest, who holds the “secrets” and “truth” about the World in their Holy Books. This ascetic is merely a mask though.

I hope that clears things up.

What did he mean by “going under” (or “down” as i read in a different translation)?

This is an allusion to Plato’s 'Allegory of the Cave" (from The Republic, I want to say its Book VII). Though Nietzsche disagreed with Plato on a lot of things, he still borrows a lot of symbolism from him. In the beginning of TSZ, Zarathustra emerges from his cave to see the world before him (like the people from Plato’s allegory, who remove their chains, escape the illusions of it, and step out into the real world), out into the sunlight for the first time (and Nietzsche speaks rather highly of the sun, whereas he speaks ill of the moon). However, he cannot simply witness the truth and be done with it. Like in the Allegory, Zarathustra must go back under/down, back into the cave and face the old illusions and prejudices (re-evaluate all values) and help others clouded by falsehood in emerging from the cave (as he does with the magician/philosopher, and other followers).

So the overman is someone who “goes under” and battles old ideas?

What the overman is exactly isn’t clearly defined, though one could take a couple stabs at a definition. Remember that Zarathustra is NOT an overman. He says in TSZ that there never has been one before. Defining the overman really becomes challenging once one begins to consider the “eternal occurrence of the same”-- which is mysteriously absent from all future Nietzsche works, though the overman reappears.

Take in mind I have read the first few chapters. I then gave up when I realized that I was reading the translation of 19th century german guys poetry. Reading clear 19th century english people’s work is hard enough.

Anyways. Can I have your opinion on it? Since we already agree on certain things I am probably going to find your view to be more agreeable than what some liberal or paranoid christian says about what Nietzsche.

You’d do well to get the translations either by Walter Kaufmann or Reginald John Hollingdale. Those are the best, other translations tend to be unreliable. I’m partial to Kaufmann, but some have preferred Hollingdale. Whichever will do.

I don’t think Nietzsche is really subject to bad Marxist/liberal/theist interpretations or whatever gobblygook. Well, I suppose he was early on in the 20th century, as he was misread and mistranslated notoriously by the fascists and whatnot. Either way, I won’t share you my interpretation… partially because I’m still a little skittish concerning Book IV and the eternal occurrence of the same… but mostly because its a book best left to close personal study and evaluation. I think simply telling you the entire book would cheapen the experience. Try and buy your own copy of TSZ, and read other Nietzsche books between readings of TSZ (and yes, you would do incredibly well to re-read it). Anything from The Gay Science onward is class. Its my favorite book of all time, and I still feel like I haven’t unlocked every personal re-evaluation it has in store for me.

Oh, more than anything, its important to know where Nietzsche is coming from. Be sure to take a look at his own life (a couple youtube videos will do) and the world around him (especially intellectually speaking). You need to know what kind of intellectual climate he was addressing; this means understanding the thoughts of Hegel, Plato (and Greek philosophy as a whole, including Homer’s plays), Schopenhauer, Spinoza, Voltaire, Dostoevsky, Mill, the operas of Wagner, and ESPECIALLY Kant. Wikipedia may do the trick, if you can’t read the source material (and reading Wikipedia beats out actually having to read Hegel any day).

Some of this you may do without, but its a project worth undergoing. It can really allow you to grow. Perhaps we can talk about it more fully and deeply after you finish the book once. I’ll be happy to help, but to just feed you the answers would be to rob you.

It wasn’t just the fascists. I have read so many theists/conservatives talk about what Nietzsche meant. Anything to link atheism with nazis right.

Well, I have always been curious about Nietzsche. I mean, one of my favorite novels was the Fountainhead. Rand was supposedly a Nietzscheian before she developed her own ideas. She claims her ideas are the exact opposite of Nietzsche’s. She said that about pretty much everybody (hedonism, AnCap) though so I don’t know if there is any truth to that. I think she was a better novelist than a philosopher anyway.

I can can sort of see why she would say that. Nietzsche wanted to take on classical philosophy, Rand wanted to restore it. Rand was all about Apollo, Nietzsche Dionysus. On one hand Howard Roark is not a sheep, but I don’t think he is someone Nietzsche would admire either.

I have read stirner. I really don’t like him though. Once again another 19th century German whose works are way to open to interpretation. I have been told that his ideas are related to Nietzche’s as well. Do you think that is true?

Ignore Rand. Ignore Rand forever. I used to really love The Fountainhead… but then I read better literature and REAL philosophy. Rand was very much influenced by Nietzsche, but she is neither a sensible growth of him or a sensible opposition to him. I haven’t personally run across many misinterpretations of Nietzsche except among those individuals first reading him. I guess I just don’t entertain the usual riff-raff very often.

I own and have read Max Stirner’s The Ego and its Own, its another favorite of mine even though I don’t necessarily agree with it all. He is a lot more easy to understand and interpret, though I think some knowledge of Hegel and the Left-Hegelians may be crucial. Him and Nietzsche have insane amounts in common. Insane. It is highly disputed whether or not Nietzsche has read him, but I have a feeling he had. Heres an interesting essay/article:

http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/ennietzsche.html

Thank you very much.

While we are on the topic of Nietzsche I believe that even H.L. Mencken points out in some place that Nietzsche if, he has any political philosophy which is doubtful, is authoritarian. Coming from people who have read the Nazi’s perversion of Nietzsche this is an understandable mistake but Mencken has more sense.

I am not sure how that fits with the state being a “cold lying monster” and Nietzsche himself living the last part of his life as stateless. However Nietzsche didn’t give a shit about what the common people thought. His criticism of Christianity for instance is has nothing to do with the believes of common people but the elevation of Christian dogma. Such perceptive seems a little pointless unless you favour elite-rule in the first place.

Maybe someone more versed in Nietzsche can shed some light on this. I have read Zarathustra but I had problems understanding it. Poetry in a 19th century version of foreign language translated from another foreign language is not ideal…

I have an interesting lecture collection by Robert Solomon called Will to Power: The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. It’s 24 tracks, and each lecture is about 30 minutes going on various topics. I’m sure it would do good for anyone who’s really into Nietzsche.

I think authoritarian is an incorrect way to put it, though I think it may be highly improper to make conjecture concerning Nietzsche’s ‘political affiliation’-- seeing as he thought politics were something to be done away with in order for men to “go over”/“go under”.

I think Nietzsche had a great respect for the natural aristocracy. In The Anti-Christian, Nietzsche criticizes The Bible and elevates the Hindu Manusmṛti (or, Laws of Manu) because, in its mythology, the ‘elites’ (the Brahman) were elite by their very nature (“T__he order of castes, the highest, the dominating law, is merely the ratification of an order of nature, of a natural law of the first rank, over which no arbitrary fiat, no “modern idea,” can exert any influence… It is not Manu but nature that sets off in one class those who are chiefly intellectual…” 57). This is different from his disdain for the Christianity and increasing egalitarian democracy taking over Western Europe, which he had disdain for (especially Protestantism).__

Perhaps Nietzsche may have been ‘authoritarian’ then, in his world order the authority would rest in the natural masters. We may be able to see the error in this. I think this sentiment can be reconciled, better understood, and better realized when one takes into effect the Hayekian knowledge-problems/spontaneous order and the natural check on authoritative monopoly that exists on the natural, unrestrained market that the Austrians have spoken of.

Bertarnd Russell’s History of Western Philosophy has a good chapter on Nietzsche. Bottom line: Nietzsche is full of crap. Support for this conclusion in the book.

Guys like Mencken and Spencer always had this sense of natural aristocracy. Jefferson used the term himself I believe. If you read Nietzsche in that light, it goes right in line with Anarcho-Capitalism.

I also listened to that lecture series a few times. I found it helpful.

I know that this thread is over a year old, but truth be told I came to a better understanding of free-market capitalism through Nietzsche in a round about way.

No, Dave, Nietzsche is not full of crap. Russell had no clue as to what Nietzsche’s main and constant theme was: joyful affirmation of the real. Russell also didn’t have access to either Nietzsche’s archives or more up to date scholarship regarding Nietzsche. Due to either the focus upon Nietzsche’s critiques of morality or certain notions, this affirmation was, and is, rarely highlighted in commentaries who see in any kind of total affirmation, something completely inadmissable. This affirmation of the real runs throughout all of Nietzsche’s works even while it evolves and becomes more explicit, as such, Nietzsche is one of the most consistent philosophers of the modern era.

What most commentators seem to miss is that Nietzsche understood tragedy as an inherent characteristic of reality and that attempts, such as metaphysical “truer” or “better” worlds, were simply ungrateful, cowardly, neurotic attempts toward escaping reality as it appears to us, as it is. These attempts are nothing but nihilism in absolutist drag, and Nietzsche’s famous “God is dead” is only a recognition of this fact.

To make this brief, I see in Mises’ own writing so many affinities with Nietzsche’s thought, even while Mises accuses Nietzsche (wrongly so) of being an “apostle of violence.” This latter apellation cannot be taken any more seriously than that of free-market capitalism being fascist.

I think the term “totalitarian” is laden with some ambiguity. Are we speaking of an ideology that seeks approbation from others, or are we speaking of an individual decision that approbates only itself? While both encompass an individual, the directions are different. Ideological totalitarianism seeks the approbation of others as a matter of its existence. What I think Nietzsche was advocating was of a wholly different order.

As I stated to Smiling Dave, I believe that Nietzsche’s constant theme was that of joyful approbation of reality in toto, not simply its “good” and “happy” aspects, but including its inherent tragic character. One need only read a work by Nietzsche to see what I mean. He speaks of the value of error in finding our “truths” and knowledge, and critiques the ungrateful attitude we tend to have for those errors. Yet, without them, there would be no knowledge and truths. Ideological totalitarianism cannot value error only the “truth” of its own logic, the end of which we simply find its circularity: the idea in which its based and upon which it embark. Nietzsche seems to have held uncertainty, and hence, possibility, in such high regard partly because of this. Total affirmation of reality, on the other hand, is a place from which we may most honestly proceed, given its inherent uncertain attitude.

I think the type of aristocracy that Nietzsche wrote about, certainly was not that of “the blonde beast,” the authoritarians of which he explicitly criticized, but those who would be bold enough to hold complete and utter affirmation of life, our world, our own ephemeral and limited becoming. It is bold because most people, not only “the common people” (as hkarnoldson put it), but also “the blonde beast” of authoritarianism reject and seek to destroy this ultimately very individual choice of affirmation of the real. They seek to do this in order for us to affirm and approbate their ideals and worldviews, rather than the everyday in its myriad appearances. This was Nietzsche’s great notion of the “revaluation of all values” in its best light, and as such, should aid in putting an end to the idea that Nietzsche’s critique of “slave” morality entailed an implicit approval for “master” morality, beyond the fact he explicity critiqued and rejected the latter.

OK, here are a few examples of reality as it really is, according to Nietzsche.

  1. From Russell:

Nietzsche’s criticism of religions and philosophies is dominated entirely by ethical motives. He
admires certain qualities which he believes (perhaps rightly) to be only possible for an
aristocratic minority; the majority, in his opinion, should be only means to the excellence of the
few, and should not be regarded as having any independent claim to happiness or well-being.
He alludes habitually to ordinary human beings as the “bungled and botched,” and sees no
objection to their suffering if it is necessary for the production of a great man. Thus the whole
importance of the period from 1789 to 1815 is summed up in Napoleon: "The Revolution made
Napoleon possible: that is its justification. We ought to desire the anarchical collapse of the
whole of our civilization if such a reward were to be its result. Napoleon made nationalism
possible: that is the latter’s excuse." Almost all of the higher hopes of this century, he says, are
due to Napoleon.

Is he misstating N’s position? If yes, evidence that it is a misstatement? If no, do you think N is right?

  1. How about this quote from N:

"I abhor the man’s vulgarity when he says ‘What is right for one man is right for another’; 'Do
not to others that which you would not that they should do unto you.’ * Such principles would
fain establish the whole of human traffic upon mutual services, so that every action would
appear to be a cash payment for something done to us. The hypothesis here is ignoble to the last
degree: it is taken for granted that there is some sort of equivalence in value between my actions and thine."

You agree with the above?

  1. More Russell, summarizing N’s view of life. Take note, women and blacks:

True virtue, as opposed to the conventional sort, is not for all, but should remain the
characteristic of an aristocratic minority. It is not profitable or prudent; it isolates its possessor
from other men; it is hostile to order, and does harm to inferiors. It is necessary for higher men
to make war upon the masses, and resist the democratic tendencies of the age, for in all
directions mediocre people are joining hands to make themselves masters. "Everything that
pampers, that softens, and that brings the ‘people’ or ‘woman’ to the front, operates in favour of
universal suffrage–that is to say, the dominion of ‘inferior’ men." The seducer was Rousseau,
who made woman interesting; then came Harriet Beecher Stowe and the slaves; then the
Socialists with their championship of workmen and the poor. All these are to be combated.

Is he misstating N’s position? If yes, evidence that it is a misstatement? If no, do you think N is right?

  1. Russell, summarizing N on compassion:

He regards compassion as a weakness to be combated. "The object is to
attain that enormous energy of greatness which can model the man of the future by means of
discipline and also by means of the annihilation of millions of the bungled and botched, and
which can yet avoid going to ruin at the sight of the suffering created thereby, the like of which
has never been seen before." He prophesied with a certain glee an era of great wars; one
wonders whether he would have been happy if he had lived to see the fulfilment of his
prophecy.

Is he misstating N’s position? If yes, evidence that it is a misstatement? If no, do you think N is right?

  1. Here’s where I see a path to free market capitalism, the fact that N didn’t idolize the state. Of course, what he did idolize, and why, seems to violate the underlying philosophy of life that makes free market capitalism possible. By which I mean cooperation. [See Mises in HA about division of labor, why it comes about, and why it is saving us from living in caves.]

He is not, however, a worshipper of the State; far from it. He is a passionate individualist, a
believer in the hero. The misery of a whole nation, he says, is of less importance than the
suffering of a great individual: "The misfortunes of all these small folk do not together
constitute a sum-total, except in the feelings of mighty men."

Is he misstating N’s position? If yes, evidence that it is a misstatement? If no, do you think N is right?

  1. Another blow for liberty by N. He is not a nationalist:

Nietzsche is not a nationalist, and shows no excessive admiration for Germany. He wants an
international ruling race, who are to be the lords of the earth: "a new vast aristocracy based upon
the most severe self-discipline, in which the will of philosophical men of power and artist-tyrants
will be stamped upon thousands of years."

Is he misstating N’s position? If yes, evidence that it is a misstatement? If no, do you think N is right?

  1. Here’s one for the girls reading this:

He is never tired of inveighing against women. In his pseudoprophetical book, Thus Spake
Zarathustra, he says that women are not, as yet, capable of friendship; they are still cats, or birds,
or at best cows. "Man shall be trained for war and woman for the recreation of the warrior. All
else is folly." The recreation of the warrior is to be of a peculiar sort if one may trust his most
emphatic aphorism on this subject: “Thou goest to woman? Do not forget thy whip.”
He is not always quite so fierce, though always equally contemptuous. In the Will to Power he
says: "We take pleasure in woman as in a perhaps daintier, more delicate, and more ethereal kind
of creature. What a treat it is to meet creatures who have only dancing and nonsense and finery in
their minds! They have always been the delight of every tense and profound male soul." However,
even these graces are only to be found in women so long as they are kept in order by manly men;
as soon as they achieve any independence they become intolerable. "Woman has so much cause
for shame; in woman there is so much pedantry, superficiality, schoolmasterliness, petty
presumption, unbridledness, and indiscretion concealed . . . which has really been best restrained
and dominated hitherto by the fear of man." So he says in Beyond Good and Evil, where he adds
that we should think of women as property, as Orientals do. The whole of his abuse of women is
offered as self-evident truth; it is not backed up by evidence from history or from his own
experience, which, so far as women were concerned, was almost confined to his sister.

Is he misstating N’s position? If yes, evidence that it is a misstatement? If no, do you think N is right?

  1. Of course, if you did something wrong, don’t feel bad or try to correct it:

Nietzsche is nauseated by repentance and redemption, which he
calls a folie circulaire.

Is he misstating N’s position? If yes, evidence that it is a misstatement? If no, do you think N is right?

  1. In praise of cruelty:

In place of the Christian saint Nietzsche wishes to see what he calls the “noble” man, by no means
as a universal type, but as a governing aristocrat. The “noble” man will be capable of cruelty, and,
on occasion, of what is vulgarly regarded as crime; he will recognize duties only to equals. He will
protect artists and poets and all who happen to be masters of some skill, but he will do so as
himself a member of a higher order than those who only know how to do something. From the
example of warriors he will learn to associate death with the interests for which he is fighting; to
sacrifice numbers, and take his cause sufficiently seriously not to spare men; to practise inexorable
discipline; and to allow himself violence and cunning in war. He will recognize the part played by
cruelty in aristocratic excellence: "almost everything that we call ‘higher culture’ is based upon the
spiritualizing and intensifying of cruelty." The “noble” man is essentially the incarnate will to
power.

  1. A word or two about N in general, and his contribution to our understanding of the world. Russell pseaking about waht is important in N’s works:

He invented no
new technical theories in ontology or epistemology; his importance is primarily in ethics, and
secondarily as an acute historical critic. I shall confine myself almost entirely to his ethics and his
criticism of religion, since it was this aspect of his writing that made him influential.

Do you agree?

I omit Russell’s solid refutations of N’s absurdities. The interested person can look them up.

In sum, I stand by my assertion about N.