Thus Spoke Zarathustra-A Reflection by Archie R. Magarao

8/14/2019 Thus Spoke Zarathustra-A Reflection by Archie R. Magarao

1/10

1

ARCHIE R. MAGARAO February 3, 2010

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY

Of Scholars

Introduction

Friedrich Nietzsche is the most critical thinker among the

contemporary philosophers, in my own opinion. His opusThus Spoke Zarathustra

is no other than a critique of the society in which he lived. His very

declaration, God is dead1 was accordingly a campaign against morality2. What

appears then is that Nietzsche is trying to deconstruct the normal mode and

common belief of his present society. On the far extent, Nietzsche criticizes

Christianity in its doctrine and in its teaching. He further motioned that

Christianity negates life, thus, he is tasked to take the part of affirming

life. In Martin Heideggers own reading of Zarathustra he says,

Zarathustra speaks on behalf of life, suffering, the

circle, and this is what he advocates. These three things, life,

suffering, circle, belong together, are the same. If we were

able to think this threefoldness correctly, as one and the same

thing, we could surmise whose advocate Zarathustra is, and who he

himself would be as that advocate. Of course, we could now break

in with a crude explanation, and assert with undeniable

correctness that in Nietzsches language, life means the will

to power as the fundamental characteristic of all beings, not

only of man. What suffering means Nietzsche states the

following words: All that suffers, wills to live; i.e.,

everything whose way is the Will to Power. This means: The

formative powers collide. Circle is the sign of the ring,

which flows back into itself and so always achieves the recurring

selfsameness.3

In this line, the section of his book ZarathustraOf Scholars delivers

the same point of reflection. It is no other than a critique of the scholars

during his time. Accordingly, the scholars are not searching the knowledge

1 Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra (London: Penguin Books, 1969), 41.

2 Samuel Enoch Stumpf and James Fieser, Socrates to Sartre and Beyond: A History of

Philosophy7th ed.(New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005), 378.

3 Martin Heidegger, Who is Nietzsches Zarathustra? in The New Nietzsche ed.

David B. Allison (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985), 65.


2/10

2

that will shatter and compel people to think instead they seek and provide

knowledge which makes people mediocre. What is left then is a negation of

lifes exuberance than its promotion. Contrarily, Nietzsche wants to provoke

the idea that scholars should refrain from merely establishing systems of

self-evident truth. Rather they should be like Socrates who is dialectical in

approaching the issue on truth. Thus, one should be willing at times to

declare oneself against ones previous opinions.4 At this point, one could

infer that Nietzsche is asserting that truth is not something static and

stagnant but dialectical which means motion and change.

An Exposition

Primarily, the section Of Scholars as what was mentioned earlier is a

criticism to the scholars during the time of Nietzsche. If I have understood

it well, Nietzsche was saying that the scholars are afraid of going out of

their comfort zones that they are contented of delivering knowledge that

never shakes the people to live and affirm life. Like in Nietzsches famous

labeling in the section Of the Preachers of Death, the scholars are inclined

to teaching the doctrine of slow-death and nihilism. Hence, they fall under

the same contention: He who goes on living is a fool, but we are such

fools! And precisely that is the most foolish thing in life...Life is only

suffering thus others of them speak, and they do not lie: so see to it hat

you cease to live! So see to it that the life which is only suffering

ceases!5

It is worth noticing that previous to the sectionOf Scholars Nietzsche

placed before it a section under the titleOf Immaculate Perception. What

message might be found or deduced from the said well thought arrangement done

by Nietzsche himself is that scholars seek only an immaculate perception

of the truth, looking to dig up knowledge without any particular goal in

mind.6 Moreover, Nietzsches criticism, which is expressed through the

character of Zarathustra, conveys the notion that scholars a becoming

4 Samuel Enoch Stumpf and James Fieser, Socrates to Sartre and Beyond: A History of

Philosophy, 380.

5 Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 72.

6 Sparknotes, Nietzsches Thus Spoke Zarathustra Commentary and Analysis,

Sparknotes online; available from www. sparknotes.com; accessed 28 January 2010.


3/10

3

uncreative and petty that they accumulate knowledge as if it were an amusing

pastime.7 Consequentially, if this behavior becomes rampant the production of

knowledge can never really soar high. Furthermore, such behavior will end up

producing no new knowledge. So much so that the field of inquiry will never

attain transcendence from culture and to whatever limits it, hence, the

Overman remains in the realms of oblivion.

As I lay asleep, a sheep ate at the ivy-wreath upon my head

ate and said: Zarathustra is no longer a scholar.

It spoke and went away swiftly and proud. A child told me

of it.

I like to lie here where children play, beside the broken

wall, among thistles and red poppies.

To children I am still a scholar, and to thistles and to

red poppies, too. They are innocent, even in their wickedness.

But to the sheep I am no longer a scholar: thus my fate

will have it blessed be my fate!

For this is the truth: I have left the house of scholarsand slammed the door behind me.

Too long did my soul sit hungry at their table; I have not

been schooled, as they have, to crack knowledge as one cracks

nuts.8

From the above opening speech of Zarathustra, it is implied that deep

within man is the craving and clutching spirit of rising above the human

existential condition. This is very much clear when he expressed the line:

too long did my soul sit hungry at their table.He happened to regret that he

was not schooled after all. On the other hand, the innocent symbolized by the

children, thistles and poppies still considers him a scholar. I would deduce

that the symbolism used by Nietzsche such as the children, thistles and

poppies which are quantifiably all in plural form represents theherd. It

suggests the conception that the scholar should rise above the mentality of

the herd. Being with the herd corrupts ones power to create and thewill to

power. The herd will just eat up ones energy for creation and suppress ones

desire towards excellence. The herd rather introduces the idea of thereading

idleror mediocrity. It gives no space for human becoming as what Martin

Heidegger would argue in his very own conception of the inauthentic existence

of the they. There is no doubt that this herd mentality is a very

nihilistic one in accordance to how Nietzsche views it. It also relates to

Nietzsches declaration: God is dead. Accordingly, Nihilism is customarily

7 Ibid.



4/10

4

thought to be a consequence of the death of God9 In effect, since most of

the scholars during the time of Nietzsche were very much uncreative due to

their submersion to the herd they add up to the decline.

I love freedom and the air over fresh soil; I would sleep

on ox-skins rather than on their dignities and respectabilities.I am too hot and scorched by my own thought: it is often

about to take my breath away. Then I have to get into the open

air and away from all dusty rooms.

But they sit cool in the cool shade: they want to be mere

spectators in everything and they take care not to sit where the

sun burns upon the steps.

Like those who stand in the street and stare at the people

passing by, so they too wait and stare at thoughts that other

thought.10

This portion is the genesis of Nietzsche critique to the scholars of

his time. Here he is contrasting Zarathustras freedom from the slavery of

the scholars or from their uncreativity. He even criticizes the so-called

dignity of the scholars. Further, he implies that what places Zarathustra

above and superior to the scholars is the fact that he istoo hot and

scorched by his own thought. The originality and creativity of Zarathustras

thought is his greatest achievement against the scholars. Moreover,

Zarathustra disgusts the comfort seeking scholars who prefersto sit cool in

the cool shade. These scholars produce no other new knowledge but only the

same and paraphrased ones. Furthermore, these scholars do not tickle the mind

to think more. They simply rest in the comfort of the self-evident truth than

taking the risk and venture into the realms of dialectic. Nietzsche wishes to

make the scholars of his time like that of Plato and Socrates who instead of

relying upon the self-evident truth urges through their dialectic the

audience to think not just a mere thinking in a simple sense but tothink

critically. Another, criticism Nietzsche raises is the fact the scholars

never tried going beyond of what is contemporarily thought of and even seeing

the other side. What might Nietzsche is pointing out is that as scholars one

should be able to transcend thinking. As what would Hans-Georg Gadamer imply

that to think or to understand is to transcend because the reality of human

understanding does not alone stresses the finitude of understanding but also

the possibility of seeing what is beyond. Asspectators, the scholars do not

really possess the practical experience of the common people rather they

9 Bernard Reginster, The Affirmation of Life (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,

2006), 39.



5/10

5

merely remain in theory. Their thought and conception of reality is detached

from the dailyness of life. They made to believe that the theory they thought

of correspond directly to what is practical in life and for this I remember

David Hume saying that there is no suchnecessary connection. Moreover, being

a spectator in the line of argument of Pythagoras might be great because as

an spectator one can reflect upon and analyze what is happening11 in the

game, however, as an spectator isnt it true, that though one sees the whole

game, in a high probability analyzes the game and can definitely see what the

players cannot see in the game, that what he perceives is still a partial

reality for surely the spectator cannot see and analyze what is at his back

while he is observing the game and the place where he is situated. It is a

fact that we only perceive singularly not totally but upon combining the

singulars we establish the whole.

The greatest crime that the scholars committed for Nietzsche is of

waiting and staring at thoughts that other thought.This is just a product of

mediocrity and complacency. By merely waiting and staring at thoughts that

other have thought makes one not a scholar in Nietzsches own judgment. Being

so only makes one a repeater of what has been said and it is like a tape

being replayed again and again. On the other hand, Nietzsche is challenging

the scholars to think beyond not just to think what others have thought of

before. Now, in relation to his critique to the herd mentality which is

highly Christian, scholars should transcend from such same line of thinking.

I would infer that for Nietzsche to think differently is not wrong rather it

is the venue for new horizon of knowledge. Furthermore, in not thinking

beyond and differently one can never see the error(s) and flaw(s) of the pre-

given mentality. By thinking differently one challenges the validity,

credibility and truthfulness of the said mentality. It may even be found

along the process of investigation that its claim of truth are mere

inventions and unfounded. I would say that truth as truth must be able to

remain standing against all inquiries and criticisms and through this alone

can the claimed truth be purified, justified, and proved as truthful.

When they give themselves out as wise, their little sayings

and truths make me shiver: their wisdom often smells as if it

came from the swamp: and indeed, I have heard the frog croak in

it!

They are clever, they have cunning fingers: what ismy

simplicity compared with their diversity? Their fingers

11 Samuel Enoch Stumpf and James Fieser, Socrates to Sartre and Beyond: A History

of Philosophy, 12.


6/10

6

understand all threading and knitting and weaving: thus they

weave the stockings of the spirit!

They are excellent clocks: only be careful to wind them up

properly! Then they tell the hour without error and make a modest

noise in doing so.

They work like mills and rammers: just throw seed-corn into

them! they know how to grind corn small and make white dust of

it.

They keep sharp eye upon one another and do not trust one

another as well as they might. Inventive in small slynesses, they

lie in wait for those whose wills go upon lame feet they lie in

wait like spiders.

I have seen how carefully they prepare their poisons; they

always put on protective gloves.

They also know how to play with loaded dice; and I found

them playing so zealously that they were sweating.

We are strangers to one another, and their virtues are even

more opposed to my taste than are their falsehoods and loaded

dice.

The scholars without hesitance profess that they are wise and possesses

wisdom. But their wisdom is very meager, actually, that to those who really

are able to think as the way thinking should be will just consider the wisdom

of the scholars as mere joke like the frog that croaks in the swamp. There is

an insightful proverb that says, The most dangerous man in the world is the

man who read only one book. It is so because such a man will think that what

he read is the whole truth and the only truth, no more and no less. It will

be the same as with the scholars that Nietzsche criticizes.

The scholars compared to Zarathustra are much diverse and, if I were to

add, sophisticated. What they call wisdom might just becleverness. In the

end, as what I understood from Nietzsches critique, these scholars do not

really understand the difference between true wisdom and cleverness more so

that they misconstrue wisdom from cleverness. Nietzsche also labels them

clocks and not only simple clocks but excellent clocks, which for me give the

impression that they really mastered their trade. But they might be jacks of

all trades but they are master of none. In addition, as clocks the scholars

characteristically do not go outside the parameters of the structure and

there is no hope in them to deconstruct whatever is pre-given and to create

something new. They do not have any sense of wonder and they do not have the

eyes of the eagle, as symbolically used by Nietzsche, which sees beyond the

horizon. In a nut shell, one cannot find anywill to create in the scholars.

Also, as clocks they only function within the standards priorly handed down

to them. Besides, their function is meaningless and paralyzed outside the

identity of being a clock, metaphorically speaking. Thus, Nietzsche


7/10

7

conjectures that we have become accustomed to interpreting the world in terms

of three basic categories: the idea that the world proceeds toward a final

aim, that its multiplicity can be subsumed under an all-encompassingunity,

and that its essential character isbeinginstead of becoming.12 This state

of being accustomed to the familiar way of interpreting the world is what

identifies the scholars as excellent clocksbut still clocks. A clock no

matter how excellent it becomes will always be a clock and this means that it

is devoid of any possibility of becomingand transcendingfrom what is a

clock. Due to their familiarity of what isthere they really work well but

beyond the sphere of their familiar world they are numb and dead as those in

the graves.

These scholars, according to Zarathustra, do not really trust each

other more so that they prevent anyone to transcend. They do so because they

are afraid of any will to powerthat is why they lie in wait like poisonous

spiders waiting for some insects to trap and chain. Moreover, they do not

trust each other because by leaving the other unguarded he might discover and

expose the truth that will jeopardize the established conventional truth they

preserved for thousands of years. This is really a hindrance for the will to

create and it is even a death to whatever creative power lies therein. To

those who try to rise above they already prepared a poison of which they

themselves are putting on gloves for protection because they knew so well

that such poison knows no friend and will even kill them if they remain

reckless. With such identity and character of scholars, Zarathustra opposes

and sets himself free.

And when I lived among them I lived above them. They grew

angry with me for that.

They did not want to know that someone was walking over

their heads; and so they put wood and dirt and rubbish between

their heads and me.

Thus they muffled the sound of my steps: and from then on

the most scholarly heard me the worst.

They put all the faults and weaknesses of mankind between

themselves and me they call this a false flooring in their

houses.

But I walk above their heads with my thoughts in spite of

that; and even if I should walk upon my own faults, I shouldstill be above them and their heads.

For men are not equal: thus speaks justice. And what I

desire theymay not desire!

At this point, Nietzsche did not deny the fact he lived with scholars.

The only distinction is that he thinks differently from them and this might

12 Bernard Reginster, The Affirmation of Life, 49.


8/10

8

be the point that qualifies Nietzsches assertion that he lived above them.

As a result, this deviation of Zarathustra provoked the anger of the scholars

against him. But this anger of the scholars, I believe, against Zarathustra

is no other than the product of protecting the establish truth. Because

compared to them Zarathustra goes beyond the limits of the conventionality

and even endeavors to see what is beyond it. Moreover, the danger of such

action is that by learning the truth of what is beyond it might challenge or

even replace the truth which they held so dear since time immemorial. This

unfortunately cannot be for the scholars because it yields only to their own

dethronement and the power which they enjoy might just as well disappear from

their grasp. Contrarily, Nietzsche conceives truth as a mobile army of

metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphism. His view at this time is that

arbitrariness prevails within human experience: concepts originate via the

transformation of nerve stimuli into images, and truth is nothing more than

the invention of fixed conventions for practical purposes, especially those

of repose, security and consistency. Viewing human existence from a great

distance, Nietzsche further notes that there was an eternity before human

beings came into existence, and believes that after humanity dies out,

nothing significant will have changed in the great scheme of things.13

Lastly, Zarathustra boast that he possesses a far superior thought to

those of the scholars not because he has some sort of superhuman powers but

that his thought, in my own opinion, is free compared to that of the

scholars. It is free true to the fact that his thinking is not subject to the

dictate of the society or the herdand to the commonly accepted norms which

many believe as the truth. Although, the scholars promote the idea that all

men are equal but Zarathustra endorses the other way around. For what reason?

The will to powerbecomes an impossibility if all men are equal. The will to

power is a natural expression of strength. People are differentiated into

ranks, and it is only quantity of power that determines and distinguishes

ones rank. Thus, ideals such as political and social equality are

nonsensical. There can be no equality where there are in fact different

degrees of power. Equality can only mean the leveling downward of everyone to

the mediocrity of the herd.14 Moreover, equality does not allow the making of

the Overman. In the state of equality, no one is permitted to rise above

13 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Friedrich Nietzsche, Stanford Encyclopedia

of Philosophy; available from www.plato.stanford.edu; accessed 30 January 2010.

14 Samuel Enoch Stumpf and James Fieser, Socrates to Sartre and Beyond: A History

of Philosophy, 386.


9/10

9

anyone else and from ones existential condition. Any deviation is a crime,

therefore.

Conclusion

Friedrich Nietzsche has a point. Any knowledge that does not tickle the

mind to think is useless because it does not make something which is new.

Nevertheless, the danger and risk of introducing new way of thinking or

knowledge may put the current authority or culture into the crucible of

inquiry and doubt. What is worst is when the introduction of the new thinking

removes and smashes the incumbent norms which the people believe to be the

truth. In this relation, Nietzsche sets the notion that truth is dialectical.

Therefore, it is not stable rather it is oriented towardsbecoming.

People who are really considered and recognized as the thinking group

of the society should, according to Nietzsche, liberate themselves from the

comfort confines of the herd mentality. They should refrain from thinking

what the others have already thought. Rather they must possess thewill to

create. This, however, implies taking risk that upon willing to create one

might put oneself challenging the establish truth of the society. When most

people concern and identify themselves only with what is acceptable and good

according to the criteria set by the society, one should be able tothink

differentlyand away from such ideology. Well, what is wrong with thinking

differently? Sometimes in doing so because one does no longer act to what is

expected from him or her by the society the automatic response and remedy is

to declare that one is insane and an outcast. It is like Jesus who upon

correcting the flawed and distorted teachings of the Jewish authorities was

judged worthy of crucifixion. For Nietzsche there is nothing wrong here, what

is the most important is that compared to those who think that they have the

truth and are slaves to such ideals, one, on the other hand, is free from

such concerns and slavery. This liberation then for Nietzsche opens the way

of the Overman.

Above all claims, what remains certain is the truth thatthere is

something we do not know. Knowing that we do not everything is much certain

than what we already and about know, for who really can ascertain that what

we know is what we really know. What we believe to be the truth might not be

the truth after all. That is why the only sure thing is that there is

something which we do not know.


10/10

10

Documents

Thus Spoke Zarathustra-A Reflection by Archie R. Magarao